tv House Session CSPAN April 22, 2015 3:00pm-9:01pm EDT
swalwell, another of our ranking members on the intelligence committee and a colleague from california. mr. swalwell: thank you. i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for bringing forth this necessary legislation. as we speak right now americans are under attack, and these attacks are not coming in the form of anything that we have been used to before. people are not kicking down front doors of homes and businesses. instead, they're attacking us through our networks. . our bank accounts, our cell phones are being hacked every day. cnn reported in 2014h half of the nation's adults were hacked. 70% -- 70 million target customers were hacked. 4.6 million snapchat user
accounts were hacked. this is snapchat which is an account that allows data to come in and disappear. they were hacked. our privacy is under attack. the problem today, there is virtually zero relationship between private industry and government. private industry which has 85% of the networks and government has 15% of the networks but has vast resources that could help protect individuals against attacks. our government has a duty, a responsibility to protect the american people. and that's what this bill seeks to do. it does it in a number of ways. first and foremost, this is a voluntary program that's being created. no business is required to turn over their breach or hack information to the government. instead there is a format, a procedure, that is now in place that will incentivize them to
work with the government to identify in a way that strips out through a number of protections personal identifiable information. the first way it is stripped out when the business that has been hacked reports to a civilian agency, they must scrub the personal identifying information. that's not the only way that information is scrubbed. once the government agency receives this personal identifying information, again it can be forwarded to the government, and again, must be scrubbed. two protections against personal identifying information being used. now, should any personal identifying information be passed and who along to the government. this bill provides a right of action, civil recourse for any individual who is wrong to sue the government. there is an sight committee, a report that must be presented to congress that would report on any privacy violations that occur. madam speaker the american
people day after day are either learning that they have been hacked or someone they know has been hacked. and this will continue to have a devastating effect on our economy and as my colleague alluded, perhaps our public utilities if we do not act. i urge support and i thank the chairman and ranking member for the hard work they have done. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, continues to reserve. mr. nunes: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, is recognized. mr. schiff: i yield three minutes to ms. sewell from alabama a great member of the intelligence committee. ms. sewell: thank you, madam chair, and i would like to thank the ranking member as well as our chair chairman nunes for your leadership on this matter. today i rise in support of h.r. 1560, protecting cybernetworks act, a bill i'm proud to be an
original co-sponsor, a bill that was unanimously voted out of our intelligence committee. again, i want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership. it is an honor to serve on that committee where we try on a daily basis to be bipartisan in our efforts to protect the homeland and to secure our national security. this critical bill is both bipartisan legislation, which encourages the private sector to share cyber delet information which will -- cyber threat information. we are hearing about another company being hit by attacks. this costs our economy billions of dollars and threatens our national security and jeopardizes every american personal, financial information. this bill takes a very important step towards addressing this emerging national security threat without compromising the privacy of american citizens.
fostering an envirlte where companies can voluntarily share information with each other helps american businesses defend themselves against cyberattacks and helps them protect consumer information and privacy. additionally, two-way information sharing with the federal government helps improve the federal government's ability to protect all americans against cyberdelets by disseminating information. i know is some continue to criticize this bill and all cyber bills as violating our privacy. i must assure you that this bill is a vast improvement over the sister bill that was entered and passed this house last term. this bill includes many more privacy protections that weren't in the original bill. the most important of which is the requirement for two scrubs of private information, one by
the private sector before sharing that information, and one by the government before sharing it further. there is also now a civilian portal. no direct sharing with n.s.a. a very narrow set of government use provisions, and a clear and legislative prohibition against such surveillance. let me repeat, no provision of this bill provides any surveillance authority. i'm encouraged by the strong showing of bipartisanship and as we work together to address the emerging threats to our national security, i urge my colleagues to join those of us who are members of the intelligence committee as well as this administration has said that it also encourages a vote in support of this bill. i urge my colleagues to support the efforts and vote yes on h.r. 1560. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california,
mr. nunes, is recognized. mr. nunes: at this time i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. trott. mr. trott: i rise to speak about the need for a stronger cybersecurity efforts in our country. personal data flows through the internet with great speed and data about people is gathered in an instant. the use of social media has opened up our lives and this is the same world where hackers steal millions of personal records from people in our distributes. most members of congress have been affected by hackers. internet criminals pose a dire threat to our government on the local state and federal level. the federal government has the resources but our local municipalities do not. five southeast michigan
counties, living ton monroe oakland, washington, wayne in the state of michigan came together to build the cybersecurity assessment for everyone. it provides a strong point for governments to begin assessing their cybersecurity needs and taking steps to respond. the assessment is an excel download. i commend these local michigan governments for committing the resources to develop such a tool and encourage my colleagues to work together to find the right solutions to fight cybercrime bypassing h.r. 1560. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california mr. schiff, is recognized. mr. schiff: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin, one of the congress' leading experts on
cybermatters. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for two minutes. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding and madam chair, this has been a long time in coming. when i served on the intelligence committee in the past two congresses, i worked closely with chairman rogers and ranking member rureptcomberger and their legacy is evident in this fine bill. i would like to commend chairman nunes for rising to the challenge as the new leaders of the house permanent select committee on intelligence and producing an even better product, particularly with regard to privacy protections. it also provides statutory authorization for the center the president has created to provide comprehensive assessments of cyberdelets. while the protections are narrow
could be important to understand that information sharing is not a silver bullet. it will be important work to be done to improve our nation's cyberdefenses. passing an information-sharing bill will get us significantly closer to being much more secure in cyber space than where we are right now. particularly when it comes to protecting critical infrastructure. after careful study for better part of a decade, i can firmly say that this bill marks a meaningful step forward. let me congratulate the chairman and ranking member of continuing with this bipartisan spirit that has shown the cyber security work and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california,
mr. nunes continues to reserve. mr. nunes: i continue to reserve. mr. schiff: we reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman reserves? mr. schiff: yes. we have further speakers but who are not present at this time. mr. nunes: i'm prepared to close -- the chair: is the gentleman from california, mr. schiff prepared to close? mr. schiff: we are prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, is recognized. mr. schiff: thank you, madam chair, every moment we wait another social security number is stolen, a checking account is hacked a trade secret pill fered and another job lost. we see it every day.
many of us have been the victim of a cybercrime, whether identity theft, the hacking of our email or facebook accounts. when it is breached we have our privacy invaded. we are paying fees to compensate for the billions of dollars that businesses lose and to prevent future cyberattacks. the problem is only getting worse as our cars, home phones, our internet banking, electronic health records. this isn't speculation but is happening today but happening right now. on the time that we have been on the floor discussing this bill, billions of additional hacking attempts have been made. here we have the opportunity to help stop this scurge of
cyberhacking. we need to encourage information sharing and not resting until it improves on its way to the president's desk for signature. i urge my colleagues to vote for this important measure. it's a bill that will protect america's most valuable and private information while itself protecting civil liberties and privacy. i and my colleagues have made sure of that and will continue to do so as the bill advances. i thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, yields back. the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, is recognized. mr. nunes: i will close by just taking a few moments to thank my ranking member and colleague from california mr. schiff, for his fine work on this product. i also would be remiss not to think both sides of the aisle, the staff who have worked hours and hours and hours to make the
legislation from last congress even better and as mr. mccaul said, to work with the judiciary committee and homeland security committee so we have a product that i think is much better than the product we have had in the past. and we have been in consultations with the united states senate. they have passed their bill out of committee and look forward to hopefully their passing the bill off the floor and get to conference. with that, madam chair, i yield back. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. purn to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule, shall be in order to be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the permanent select committee on intelligence printed in the bill. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in part a of house report 114-88. each such amendment may be offered in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided controlled by the pro opponent and opponent shall not be subject to amendment or subject to demand of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 114-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. nunes of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 212, the gentleman from california, mr. nunes and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.
the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. . these changes will align several sections of the bill, including the authorization for the use of defensive measures and the liability protections within the committee on homeland securities bill, h.r. 1731. the amendment also removes a direct amendment to the freedom of information act because the bill already contains a strong exception of cyberthreat information and defensive measures from disclosure. the change does not have a substantive effect on the exemption of cyberthreat information from disclosure laws. the changes also reflect feedback we have received from our minority, from the executive branch, from outside group, and from other committees of congress. we want to make sure that the bill establishes a workable system for companies and the government to share cyberthreat information and defensive measures. i urge members to support this
technical and clarifying amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does congressman from california seek recognition? >> i request consent -- unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, even though i'm not opposed. the speaker pro tempore: without objection -- the chair: without objection. >> thank you, madam chair. the manager's amendment makes mostly technical edits to the bill, which advanced out of the intelligence committee unanimously. mr. schiff: these strong edits came from our close and continuing consultations with outside groups and with the white house. there is still work that remains to be done, in particular we're going to work as the bill moves forward on the liability section. in order to benefit from the liability protection under the current language, it is necessary for companies to strictly comply with the act, which means sharing information only for a cybersecurity purpose and taking reasonable efforts to remove private information before sharing it. and i would support making
further changes to the bill to make this requirement even more clear. in particular i think it would be advantageous to strike what is, in my view, an unnecessary section on the rule of construction pertaining to willfulness conduct, striking the rule of construction will help further clarify the intent of the bill, that liability protection is only available if the company or other nonfederal entity shares cyberthreat information for a cybersecurity purpose and only after it takes reasonable steps to premove private information not -- remove private information not directly related to the threat. that's the intention of the bill and i think striking that section will make it more clear. if a company acts unreasonably, let alone recklessly or willfully in following these requirements, it does not get liability protection and nor should it. that's the right result and we should be careful not to create any confusion about there being any immunity for people or companies acting willfully,
recklessly or even unreasonably, disregarding private information, the requirement that it be extricated. in some -- in sum, the manager's amendment makes positive technical changes. there are further changes that i would like to see as the bill moves forward. confusion in any section of the bill, particularly as it pertains to liability, means litigation and litigation means costs sooned i think there's further work for us to do to make it even more clear. in sum i support the technical and substantive changes made in the manager's amendment. i urge my colleague to to do the same -- colleagues to do the same and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, is recognized. mr. nunes: madam chair, i have no other speakers so i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, yields back. and the gentleman from
california, mr. schiff, is recognized. mr. schiff: i join the chairman in urging support for the manager's amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 114-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. cardenas: thank you, madam speaker. i'm here to present my amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in the part a of house report 114-88 offered by mr. cardenas of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 212, the gentleman from california, mr. car denaas -- mr. cardenas, and a member
opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. cardenas: thank you very much, madam speaker. i rise today to speak in support of my amendment, h.r. 1560. i applaud the managers of this legislation for all their hard work. i understand the difficult balance that must be struck in this important debate and thank the committee for the opportunity to have my amendment considered today. this amendment will protect national security by starting from the ground up. protecting our smallest of businesses. cyberattacks are a real threat to our economy and national security. hackers will look for the most vulnerable in the supply chain to exploit their security. this is why we must make sure any legislation related to cybersecurity places small businesses at the forefront of our security planning. by doing this, we will be protecting customers and businesses up and down the supply chain, which will defend our economy as a whole from being attacked. the amendment will ensure that
the s.b.a. will assist small businesses and small financial institutions in participating in the programs under this bill and it will also make sure the federal government performs outreach to small businesses and small financial institutions. this is a commonsense provision that addresses the issues that are critical to ensuring the security of our cyberspace and our economic well-being now and into the future. small businesses are increasingly becoming the target of cyber criminals as large companies increase their protections, so we need to -- so that they can harm them with the information and technical assistance they need to create effective plans to thwart these attackses -- attacks and intrusions. on a personal note, i once owned a small business myself. i left my bigger corporate job to start a small business in my local community and employ people i grew up with. washington is a far-away place for many small businesses in our country. the laws here can seem disconnected. the issues can be brushed off as someone else's problem.
this is why it's essential that today and moving forward on all of these cybersecurity debates, we make sure we have programs in place to work with and educate our small businesses and understand that every time one of these small businesses are successfully attacked and breached it's a possibility that they could go under, losing those local jobs. so i think this is a commonsense amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california mr. nunes. mr. nunes: i claim the time in opposition although i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. nunes: i want to thank the gentleman from california for bringing this amendment, a very thoughtful amendment, well thought out, he worked closely with the committee to ensure that the language did not disrupt the intent of the bill. we're prepared to accept the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. nunes yields
back. the gentleman from california, mr. cardenas, is recognized. mr. cardenas: thank you. i'd like to yield the balance of my time to congressman schiff. the chair: congressman from california, mr. schiff, is recognized. mr. schiff: i thank the gentleman, my colleague, for yielding. for a large business, a cyberattack can be costly and damaging. for a small business, a cyberattack can be fatal. wiping out a family's dream or a lifetime of work in a few clicks of a mouse. small businesses and small financial institutions also don't have the large legal shops that are sometimes necessary to keep up with the latest changes or regulations coming from washington. that's why i'm so pleased that my california colleague offered this important amendment. while i don't expect that any sharing mechanism will ultimately be costly to maintain or access, there will be some cost, especially in the early stages of implementation. and there will be some new procedures to navigate. this amendment will help put the reach and authority of a small business association in the service of cybersecurity by
having the agency assist in the rollout of cyberthreat information sharing. it's an important addition to the bill and i thank the gentleman for raising the issue and urge my colleagues to support it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. cardenas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to -- is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 114-88.
for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. carson: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 3 offered by mr. carson of indiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 212, the gentleman from indiana, mr. carson, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana. mr. carson: thank you madam speaker. madam speaker, i proudly support jed this bill when we mark -- supported this bill when we marked it in the intelligence community. i only bring this up to address a basic transparency concern
raised by my constituents after the markup. the cybersecurity threat posed to our government our businesses and our personal information is massive and growing every day. this bill provides an important tool to ensure that the lessons learned from a breach of one company can help strengthen the security of others. as a result, your social security and credit card numbers will be better protected. madam speaker, as someone who opposed cispa last year i feel like this iteration is a major first step forward in privacy protection and transparency. i'm particularly happy with the robust protections of personally identifiable information. unlike past iterations, this bill mandates that cyberthreat information is scanned and personal information is removed
, not once, but twice before it can be transmitted to other federal agencies. i'm pleased, madam speaker, that companies will share their cyberthreat information with a civilian agency not directly with the intelligence community. i'm also happy that additional limitations are placed on the ways that cyberthreat information can be utilized. and yet for all the benefits of this bill, the american people still rightfully so expect oversight that is consistent and comprehensive. that is what this amendment is all about. it strengthens the oversight of the inspector general monitoring this kind of information sharing. with this amendment the inspector general will oversee and report on the process for information sharing procedures, for removing personal information and any incidents in which this information was treated improperly.
it will ensure congress and the public that shares is happening properly and -- sharing is happening properly and the public is being protected. i hope that my good republican colleagues can support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, seek recognition? mr. nunes: i claim time in opposition although i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. nunes: i want to thank the gentleman who is a member of the intelligence committee, who has played a very productive and constructive role. as he said, his constituents brought these concerns to him. he worked with the ranking member and myself and we are prepared to accept the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. carson: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank my good friend chairman tune in, he and at this time madam speaker i
yield -- nunes and at this time, madam speaker i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. schiff: i thank the gentleman for yielding. this is mr. carson's first year on the committee and i appreciate his dedicated service and the interest he has taken in oversight of the intelligence community. he brings a background in law enforcement, which is very welcome addition to our committee and joins other colleagues with a very similar background. he's worked closely with us to make privacy improvements throughout the process a suppt fohere again to make a good bill even better. mr. carson's amendment would include a requirement to make sure the critical dual privacy scrub is working the way it should. this is very important, it's at the core of our bill and the core of our efforts to protect privacy. we must monitor how these requirements are working and support transparent rtin to khy e worki as intended. i support the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same and i am happy to yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california,
mr. nunes, has yielded time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. . mr. carson: thank you to chairman nunes and ranking member schiff for their support in helping to keep our community safer, but i want to thank my republican colleague for supporting this amendment. as a new member of the committee i have greatly appreciated the guidance, the bipartisan guidance, if you will. every member of this house, madam speaker, has heard from constituents, who are concerned about government surveillance and overreach. after everything we have heard billion bulk collection over the last few years, the american people are right to be concerned about new authorities to collect data. as the text plainly and repeatedly states, this is not a surveillance bill. we have protections in place to ensure that the intelligence
community cannot collect and utilize your personal data. this amendment simply ensures that congress and the public get to this sharing process and see how it works if these protections happen to fail. i urge support for this amendment and the underlying bill. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 in part a of
house report 114-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. mulvaney: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 114-88 offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 212, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: i thank the chairwoman and the chairman for presenting this amendment today. i will talk about the beginning of this amendment. it has a seven-year sunprovision. in going through the review of this bill, madam chair, it occurred to me this is a really close call. there are folks that i respect,
great deal of correct who reached out to me and said this is what the difficulty is with this bill. and there are people that i have great deal of respect and correct in the industry and they said here are the good things in the bill and here's why you should support it. probably not unusual that we have that circumstance before us. so it's a close call. we are balancing two very critical things. security, cybersecurity on one hand and privacy and liberty interests on the other. it's a balancing act that we are called to do many times here in washington, d.c. as i was going through the ball taking input from both sides, it occurred to me, all right, what if we got it wrong. what if we have the balancing act wrong. sure we can go back in and fix it in the future, some time in the future, but this is a busy
place with a lot of bills demanding attention on any given day. would you know it be nice to have something in the bill to force congress to come back and say, a couple years back, here's what we did on cybersecurity, is it working did we get it right, is the balance between security and privacy one that is serving both of those important interests correctly? and we sat down and talked with some of my colleagues about the time that is necessary. seven years is a long time to have a sunset provision in the bill. but given the complexities, the systems necessary to be put in place in order to implement the programs in the bill, it struck me that seven years is the appropriate time. i'm glad that we have sunprovisions in other pieces of legislation. i doubt we would be having serious discussions right now as things as important as the patriot act if a sunset
provision was not hardwired into the bill. maybe we should add it to every single piece of legislation to force us to see what we thought we were doing several years ago was as good an idea as it was several years ago. that was the intention. very simple seven-year sunset provision and i hope my colleagues would see fit to support it. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. schiff: i appreciate my colleague's concern, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. nunes: my friend from south carolina is very thoughtful in his approach in wanting sunset provisions in many laws that pass this body and i think that's correct on major pieces of legislation especially
involving government bureaucracies, the creation of government bureaucracies and the implementation of regulation. i would just make a few important points that i think this bill is very different, because this is a voluntary bill. it is also legislation that because of the liket protections that are in this bill, if you have a sunset clause in it and part of the reason why the other amendments that were made out of order and this was made in order because it was the longest time seven years it's tough to for a company to design, build, get in the process of preparing how they're going to share this information company-to-company. and i'm afraid even though this is seven years once that -- will companies make the investment in terms of being willing to share, then if it
expires, then what happens with the trial lawyers that would then come after the fact when the congress doesn't act with information that is sitting out there that no longer has the protections. and this is actually why back in the last version of this legislation was up last year or last congress, we made several changes since then and we have many more supporters since that time because of the changes we have made to make sure we scrub private data and make sure it doesn't go to any government agency, all the steps we have taken, but because of the trial lawyer component and the liket that would be left open groups like heritage opposed an amendment just like this. we would like to work with the gentleman and his colleagues on this, but i would ask if he would be willing to work with us in a potential conference or
possibly down the road but it might be appropriate -- i hate to rise in opposition or oppose this amendment because he is my good friend and see if he might be willing to withdraw and work with us when we get to a conference on a reasonable solution to this. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves? mr. nunes: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. the gentleman has 2 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. mulvaney: under ordinary circumstances i might consider withdrawing the amendment but we are here under an extraordinary rule and i do appreciate the chairman's genuineness of his request because we have worked together in the past and look forward to working with him in the future and i consider him to
be a good friend and colleague but because of the joint nature of the rule, if this bill passes and the bill that is being offered by the homeland security committee tomorrow passes and my understanding is that those two will be merged and i have a similar amendment to mr. mccaul's bill so i'm not sure withdrawing, i will respectfully decline your request. my good friend does mention an interesting part of my history in washington, d.c. when i offered a similar amendment to the patriot act a couple of years act and the heritage foundation did oppose it and always made me smile when i remember going through that conversation with my friends over at the heritage foundation and i had to send them a copy of ed fullner's book and the last chapter is talking about
including a sunset provision in every piece of legislation. with all due respect both as the chair of the committee and member of this body and friend of mine, i will politely decline his request and i yield back. mr. nunes: i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. farenthold: i appreciate you yielding time to me even though i'm in support of this amendment. listen, we need this legislation because our companies and our industries, our government and even our individual citizens are under attack by foreign cyberhackers, under attack from criminals. we need the cooperation between the government and the private sector. but unfortunately, we see that well-meaning folks in the
government sometimes get overzealous in their data collection. we section 215 of the patriot act, we saw in the snowden revelations that metadata on phones was being collected. we didn't know that when we passed the patriot act. we can take a look a few years down the road and making sure this this isn't being misinterpreted not in line with the constitution. this sunset is a critical piece of the bill. the bill's not perfect, but makes it a whole lot better and gives us a second bite at the apple should things be going wrong. and i appreciate your yielding. the chair: the gentleman from california has 1 1/4 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from south carolina has yielded. mr. nunes: i thank you madam chair. i'm prepared to close and i just
say, i have to hate to oppose this amendment, they are offering it in good faith with good intentions, however, it's a voluntary program. cybersecurity is going to continue to be a -- an ever increasing problem, challenge, and last thing we want to do is put a backstop where citizens are afraid to share information because they are afraid of being sued by a trial lawyer down the road. i hate to oppose the amendment, but i urge my colleagues to vote no. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. mulvaney: i request the taking of the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6
of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in part a of house report 114-88. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have mr. allen: amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5, printed in house report 114-88 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 212, the the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the manager, the chairman and ranking member of the house intelligence committee for their
service and leadership. and i offer this amendment as i believe will answer a question that has been raised by many members but really has bipartisan support. this amendment is offered as a jackson lee/polis amendment and the specifics says not later than threel years after the enactment of this act, the comptroller general will report on actions to remove cyberthreat indicators. again, this relates to the concern that many of us will hear over and over again from our constituents, in the world of hacking and misdirection and unfairness and terrorism, it is important to secure this nation, to be able to have the right information, as i member of the homeland security committee, we have to have information to protect the homeland. there is a public benefit to my
amendment and this amendment is it will provide the public assurance from a reliable and trustworthy source that their privacy and civil liberties are not being compromised. we are a state and nation borne out of the existence of the bill of rights along with the constitution, as framed in a democracy and also framed the presentation osness of individual rights and privacy. i offer this amendment again to emphasize the importance of privacy that is so very important. the jackson lee-polis amendment provides, again, for a government accountability act report to congress on the actions taken by the federal government to renew personal information from data shared through the programs established by the statute. the intent of the report, as indicated, is provide congress with the information regarding the effectiveness of protecting the privacy of americans.
again, this amendment would result in the sole external report on privacy and civil liberties impact of the programs created under this bill. privacy is of great concern to the american people. i know that because as we were doing the patriot act in the shadow of the heinous act of 9/11 i will tell you that large voices were raised particularly out of the judiciary committee and when working with the house intelligence committee, about the issues of privacy. americans understand that. privacy is of great concern to the american public. privacy involves the handling and protection of personal information. and as well personal information when personal information is -- information, when personal information is improperly assessed, used and abused, it can cause financial and personal harm to those whose data is involved. can i have how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentlewoman has two minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: i would like to yield the remaining time, as i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment, i'd be happy to yield to the
distinguished ranking member, mr. schiff two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. schiff: i thank the gentlelady from texas and the gentleman from colorado for their amendment and i'm happy to support it. we created a lot of law in this body and it is absolutely necessary that we establish reporting mechanisms that allow usearehe effectiveness of the work that we do here. this is an amendment that will do just that. by requiring regular reports on the operation of the sharing mechanism that we are creating, we can determine whether it's working as intended or whether it needs to be tweak order changed to be more effective -- tweaked in order to be more effective. -- be tweaked or changed to be more effective. i want to thank sheila jackson lee, as well as the gentleman from colorado, for their efforts. i support the amendment and i yield back. ms. jackson lee: reclaiming my time, which time is remaining? the chair: the gentlewoman has 45 seconds remaining.
ms. jackson lee: thank you. i thank the gentleman. a report on consumer abuse of the privacy issue published by the pew center found a majority of adults surveyed found their -- felt their privacy is being challenged such as the security of their personal information, their ability to maintain confidentiality. it's for this reason that i believe the jackson lee amendment, in conjunction with the underlying legislation, h.r. 1560, will be an added asset to ensure that the personal data, privacy and civil liberties of americans are protected. i ask that the amendment be supported and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to house 6 of rule 1
-- clause 6 of rule 18 the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 114-88 by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 114-88 offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of reprentis. any use of theloptd ceret hs
this amendment is adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises. the house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1560 and i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 1560 and, pursuant to house
resolution 212, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous request is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to improve cybersecurity in the united states, through enhanced sharing of information about cybersecurity threats and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members are asked to take their
seats. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> i'm opposed to it in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: miss rice of new york moves to recommit the bill h.r. 1560 to the select committee on intelligence permanent select with the instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith well the following amendment. page 22 line 14, strike and. page 22 line 16, strike the period and insert a semicolon. page 22, after line 16, insert the following. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. >> consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to dispense with the reading of the motion? the reading ispensed. the house will be in order. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for five minutes. miss rice: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to
the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee, if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. mr. speaker, the most important job we have is to protect the american homeland and the american people. the threats against our country are ceaseless and constantly evolving and we too must evolve and adapt in our efforts to maintain the domestic security that the american people have entrefted -- entrusted us to uphold. pacing -- passing h.r. 1560 will be a significant step forward in that effort. our nation's cyberinfrastructure is under attack every single day. from hackers from foreign nations and from terrorists. i believe h.r. 1560 will strengthen our government's ability -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the gentlewoman is correct. the house will be in order. members are requested to take their seats and remove their conversations from the house floor. the house will be in order.
the gentlewoman is recognized. miss rice: thank you mr. speaker. i believe h.r. 1560 will strengthen our government's ability to coordinate with companies in the private sector, share intelligence and respond to these threats. but i also believe the legislation should be stronger. we know that foreign nations and terrorist organizations are actively seeking to steal american military intelligence and technology and we know that terrorists are using the internet to spread their poisonous ideology, recruit american citizens to join their ranks, and encourage attacks here in america. just this week six minnesota men were arrested after trying to travel to syria to join the islamic state. last week authorities arrested an ohio man who actually trained with a terrorist group in syria and returned to the u.s. intent on carrying out an attack on our soil. earlier this month two women in my home state of new york were arrested for planning to detonate a bomb in new york
city. mr. speaker, this amendment will help prevent -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the house will be in order. the gentlewoman is recognized. miss rice: mr. speaker, this amendment will help prevent a domestic terror attack by allowing federal agencies to coordinate and prioritize the sharing of cyberthreat intelligence regarding known terrorist organizations like the islamic state, boko haram, al-shabab and al qaeda. and its affiliates. groups that use the internet and social media as a weapon in their efforts to attack the united states and the american people. like wise, this amendment will direct federal agencies to prioritize the sharing of intelligence regarding attempts by terrorists and foreign nations to steal american military technology. this amendment will help protect our nation and the people we serve. i have no doubt that that is the highest priority for my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, so we must also make it a priority to neutralize these threats and do all that we can to thwart the violent ambitiouses of those who want to do us harm -- ambitions of those who want to do us harm. i believe h.r. 1560 is important legislation that deserves bipartisan support. but i believe this amendment deserves the same. it will make the legislation stronger, make the american people safer and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give it their full support. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, this motion to recommit is nothing more than a poison pill designed to destroy the years of work that have gone into crafting this legislation. the bill already does exactly what the motion to recommit purposes. it helps the american people defend themselves against hackers from countries like china, russia, iran, north korea and other terrorist
groups. while we stand here and continue to debate this problem, our country is under attack. mr. nunes: from hackers who still steal our intellectual property, -- who steal our tinl property, pilfer our personal information, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to recommit and yes on final passage and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not adopted. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. miss rice: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient eravg arisen, rerd ve d memberwi rorthte becon dic pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20 this five-minute vote on the motion to to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill if ordered. this is a five-minute vote.
the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the bill is passed, without objection -- >> i ask for a recorded vet. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is qurd. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representativ. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibitedy e s.ou o repreat
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 307, the nays are 116, the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourn today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house will be in order. members will remove their conversations from the house floor. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek
recognition? without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker today represents the 100-year anniversary of the first use of poison gas on earth. on april 22 1915, chlorine gas was sent crawling in favorable winds across planters field from german positions into positions held by the french. this sewed terror and agony for the first time. and i would like for everyone present and everyone listening to pause for a moment to think about everyone who's died in the last 100 years from poisoned gas. including everyone who's dying today in syria. many people in america were horrified at the 60 minutes
presentation of the attacks and the footage that that included. mr. foster: and it is horrifying to think that chlorine is also being used in that war today. there is a reason that we put chemical weapons in a separate category never to be used by any nation in any war. and if people could just pause and think for a moment and rededicate ourselves to ridding the entire world of chemical weapons forever. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank the chairman. last month our world bid farewell to ed immediate, -- mead, a former president
co-publisher, editor, columnist and all-around legend of the erie times news in erie, pennsylvania, a paper founded business i had grandfather in 1888. mr. mead leaves behind an extraordinary legacy in the newspaper business and in the community of erie, the city where he was born and spent so much of his life devoted to connecting with people. he was often referred to as the voice of erie, leading a long and distinguished career that included more than 14,000 features for his odds and ends column. one that appealed to so many people throughout our region. mr. mead was so committed to serving his family's newspaper that after graduating from princeton university in 1949, he turned down a contract to play professional football in the national football league's detroit lions club. instead he decided to return to work in erie for the next 63 years at the erie times. mr. kelly: although mr. mead's passing will long be felt at the rembings ie times publishing company and the entire city of erie and the
entire community, we now know he rests in heaven. as true of all legends, he may be gone, but he will surely never be forgotten. i thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. thank you, mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize someone who has been described as a trail blazer, a pioneer and a woman of firsts. doreen thomas, who on this friday will retire after four decades of public service. thomas became the first foreign female police officer in 1980. in fact, when she started the evidence room was located in the men's locker room. something she would eventually change. in 2000 thomas became the department's first female police chief but she often said she would simply prefer to be known as a good police chief rather than a female police
chief. mr. jolly: five years ago she was elected president of the florida chief's association. she also started intensive crisis intervention training which teaches officers how to work with people with behavioral or mental health challenges. it's a privilege to recognize a person who has helped keep our citizens safe, to honor a person who has led with courage kindness, grace and understanding. i urge my colleagues to join me in thanking chief thomas for herselfless years of service. thank you for making our county a safer place and thank you to all the men and women who today serve on the front lines of law enforcement. chief thomas, enjoy your retirement. you have very well earned it. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. hastings of
florida from april 21 through april 23. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, -- under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. russell, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. russ russ thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. russell: thank you mr. speaker. in his state of the union address, president obama asked us in congress to grant him
fast track trade promotion authority so he can, quote, write rules for the world's economy. i sat alarmed for america's future, should we expand this president's authority, given how he has extended executive overreach fumbled our foreign policy debilitated our defense and diminished our domestic trank quitment -- tranquility. at least this time the president asked to bypass congress. regardless of the merits of trade partnership or the tactics of their negotiation, two fundamental questions loom. why do we trust this president, given his track record in foreign affairs? and what serious harm would come to the nation by waiting 21 months? trade promotion authority or t.p.a. would prevent congress from amending as much as one word of the rules he writes by
sweeping -- a sweeping agreement the white house has been working toward for the past six years. even if parameters were set beforehand, violations would be subject to -- an up or down vote with no amending permitted. unlike a treaty, a simple majority is all that would be needed to pass. for congress to cede oversight on such a sweeping agreement, could have grave implication. the american people must be at the table and they can be, through their elected representatives in congress. in a balanced process, the full range of congressional committees would hold hearings with experts establish clear objectives, set the terms of negotiation and be regularly informed throughout the negotiating process. this would ensure trade deals are in the best national interest for the long haul, not
designed to please some small groups of well-connected insiders for some tempting short-term benefit. while trade is vital in securing economic freedom and in strengthening our values and friendships, we must approach any partnership with a comprehensive view of its strategic impact. advocates have stated that a trans-pacific partnership will open trade involving 40% of global economic activity. this is a misrepresentation. when one considers that six of the other 11 nations propose for the partnership already have strong trade agreements with the united states, and many of the remainder enjoy excellent trade relations, such as with japan. the president also claims a trade surplus without delineating this improvement will come from services such as financial, insurance and computing. not from manufacturing, as he purports. given obama's scathing
streement of financial and insurance investment overseas, one wonders if there is not some other hidden motivation. alarmingly, mr. obama uses containment language with regard to china as a major premise for obtaining fast-track authority. while we employ economic instruments of our national power with regard to an asent dant china, we must ensure in tandem efforts with diplomatic and informational instruments as well. strategically these are lacking. further, should a trade dispute result in an impasse, nations historically have lashed back with their last remaining option, their military. i have been on the receiving end of many of those strategic implications. ours must be prepared, our military, as we explore these new frontiers and i have heard no serious discussion from
anyone in congress or the white house thinking comprehensively and strategically in this manner. that our military and our diplomatic efforts must also be resourced and refornsed as we move economically -- de-- reinforced as we move economically in this pivot to asia. when john hay opened trade with china more than a century ago as a hedge on an asent dant japan to balance european concerns the achievement was widely heralded. japanese society had rapidly embraced western science and technologies since the days of komondor perry. a vibrant economy blossomed. western ideas in manufacturing banking, business and even military doctrine quickly transformed japan into a formidable power. this was not without political consequence. japan had transformed her society, fought as an ally in a world war with the west, imported goozes to a demanding
public, built ships together with the west and signed treaties. their rapid transformation alarmed the japanese diet hard liners who used this anti-western sentiment to wedge mittcal power. within a 15-year span the lengthy embrace of the west gave way to competition for resources, distrust, the fall of japanese government and the doctrine of the greater east asia could prosperity sphere. -- co-prosperity sphere. in even a more couple years, what was embraced in the west was widely dess spiced in japan they were deliberately attacked. few ever saw it coming. but japan and the united states are such strong allies in france today is a testament to our mutual commitment to the repairing of human diplomatic and economic tragedies. we cannot allow president obama to rush willy-nilly into a
fast-track chinese hedge moany without regard to strategic thinking. given his dismal foreign policy record it comes as no revelation, but it does come with consequences. what serious harm will come to our nation by waiting 21 months when we have an administration that actually could achieve foreign policy successes instead of one foreign policy defeat after another? a dog may lap up anti-freeze because it seems good to the taste and pleasant to the eye but it does so with consequence. we should not be lured by the appeal to our natural senses for trade and economic growth. patience now may prevent horrific consequences in a major war in the future. and we do that by advancing our national instruments of power with diplomatic effort,
military readiness and preparedness in tandem with our economic effort. what serious harm can come by waiting 21 months? as abraham lincoln famously said, nothing good can be frustrated by time. we do not need to give the president this authority. we need to wait, have the patience, lay the strategic foundation, so that we can do what is best for our country and move into a trade agreement that will have long lasting foundation. and with that mr. speaker i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. schiff: mr. speaker on
april 24 whether he mark the 100th anniversary of the armenian genocide. 100 years ago 1.5 million armenians, along with syrians and greeks, were slaughtered by the ottoman empire in the first genocide of the 20th century. the sheer scale of genocide thwarts our capacity to comprehend it. 1.5 million armenians killed. six million jews killed in the holocaust. one million tutsis. the numbers become be a straxes, sanitized by their enormity. it's only when we consider each of those lives individually that the full horror comes into focus. for the victims of genocide are more than victims. they're human beings. the armenians massacred from 1915 to 1923 were men women and children targeted in what was then an unprecedented campaign to wipe out an entire
people. it is our duty in the modern day to remember those lost and to bear witness that the campaign to destroy the armenian people failed. we do so by speaking the truth and we do so by speaking the names of those 1.5 million and by keeping both the way they lived and the way they died alive in our memory. . earlier this month, i asked my armenian constituents to submit the names and stories of their family members who were killed 100 years ago. the response was overwhelming. thousands of people sent the names and stories of ancestors killed in the genocide. the names of infants and toddlers ripped from their notters' arms, the names of children and elderly. the names of women and girls who were brutalized and killed.
the names of clearing killed and tortured. the name of men robbed of their possessions, homes and lives. each victim has a name and a story. and from glendale to jordan and every corner of where they live, families sent me those names and those stories. it is my honor to read some of those names this hour knowing that it would take more than 1,000 hours, more than 50 days to read all of them. turkey may deny the genocide. our administration may lack the courage to recognize the genocide. our congress may lack the courage to acknowledge the genocide. no one can deny the humanity of its victims and no one can deny our right to speak the truth. 100 years ago, 1. million
hovinas. frant. dikran. grigor. nashawn. sirpehee. bitsar. lusintak. simon shitekian. eva marsigian was 10 years old. her village was occupied by turkish troops. two soldiers fought over her to settle their dispute. their commanding officer caught eva in half with a sword. alies. garab. hagob. katya.
hovines was a well-known and respected doctor. turkish soldiers came to his door at 3:00 a.m. and told him his help was needed for a 9-year-old girl. he went with him and was never seen again. biyuvant. harutian arabian. abe are a hame arabian -- abraham arabian. snavoon arabian. setrok arabian. merksat arabian. haji arabian. lusinie arabian. miriam a rainian. -- arabian.
lucy ivazian. takuhe. sarkese malvelian. fe dembingsan shukaian. zarohue. nazaret malgarian. this evening i've had only one hour to pay tribute to those who were killed 100 years ago. i'd hope to get through 1,500 names, and i still have so many more to go. i'll be entering all of the names that i received into the congressional record. it would take me at least another 1,000 hours if i could, to speak the names of all 1.5 million armenian men,
women and children who were lost. in their memory we think of those who went before we cherish their memory and we have the courage to speak allowed that they perished in the first genocide of the last century. we will never forget. and we will never succumb to the coercion of complicit and silence on genocide. i thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 535, an act to promote energy efficiency. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes.
mr. gohmert: thank you mr. speaker, and i want to commend my friend, mr. schiff, for what he is doing, it is a very noble thing when people are killed whether you want to call it a genocide or not, i would just very appreciate my friend, adam schiff, calling those names and giving them recognition after the hell on earth they went through. very noble endeavor. mr. speaker, what i came to the floor to talk about is the so-called deal that the administration is trying every way they can to get the iranians
to even just say that they are ok with. unfortunately, the iriranians have been dragging this out for years now and we found that they have been talking before with the iranians before the deal -- the negotiations at least ever surfaced and we had reports that there was an informal negotiation taking place that was denied back originally and turns out there was negotiations and so what this has done to israel, our ally, our friends in israel, the people that are actually our forward observers out there in the middle of a chaotic middle east that this
made more chaotic, they are out there and some people have referred to as the miner's canary. when they're under attack and when they're struggling because of other countries than we can anticipate the united states will be shortly behind it. so an article from the "wall street journal", dated april 17 entitled, "u.s. suggests compromise on iran sanctions." . president obama said tehran could receive significant economic relief immediately after concluding a deal to curb its nuclear program. isn't that great though. we are now using the word curb their nuclear deal. at one time it was to dismantle
their nuclear efforts. at one time, it was going to be totally unacceptable for iran, probably the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world certainly think supported plenty of terrorism that has killed americans have built, used and furnished i.e.d.'s that have killed and maimed so many thousands of americans. but now we're down to this point to just curbing. if we can just curb them, apparently that will be saturday tower -- satisfactory and after the last so-called mutual agreement was announced, we had the iranians, the leaders of iran saying we didn't agree to any of that. having beenal former judge, having tried no tell how many
cases, i know if you have one side saying we have an agreement , and the other side saying, we never agreed to anything, and that's before any of the terms of the agreement are ever undertaken by either side, then you don't have an agreement. they teach us basic contracts. and i know the president, in chicago was concentrating on the constitution, but the fact is under contract law, one of the contract 101 things they teach you is you have to have a mutual meeting of the minds. and if one side says, he haven't agreed to anything and you don't
have a document they signed, and you don't have a tape recording even of them saying yes, we agreed to those things, you don't have a deal. you don't have an agreement. there is absolutely nothing enforceable and the interesting thing about international law is basically if the most powerful country in the world is not willing to enforce something that it says is an agreement, then it doesn't matter whether you got an agreement or not. i was very fortunate to have had for on semester at baylor law school, a visiting dean of a japanese law school who taught an international law class that i took, and i did as good as you could do in that course, but the
visiting dean was such a brilliant guy and i did a paper and did very well with that, and i would love to sit down and visit with the dean from japan. after the conclusion of the course i had my grade i said, you know, dean i hope this is not inappropriate to say but having taken your course having studied diligently for your cors -- course, it seems to me that the bottom line with international law is that really international law is whatever the biggest, most powerful country says it is, if they're willing to use their power.
and the dean said, well, mr. gohmert, you did learn something in my course. you got it. if in international law, nobody is willing to stand behind a deal and force another country to abide by the deal you don't have a deal. you might as well not even have a written agreement in international law if somebody's not willing to enforce it. under most people's definition of an act of war, if you were to attack an embassy then for purposes of most people's international law, you have committed an act of war. that embassy is considered to be conch and -- to be sovereign and if you attack that country it is an act of war. which is what happened in 1979
in a place called tehran, iran. i was in the army stationed at fort beening at the time, so we were obviously paying close attention to an act of war against the united states. i think most people at beening were put on alert but that didn't happen. act of war was committed against the united states, but our failure to do anything but basically beg the iranians to let our hostages come home was deemed as weakness. and as i understand still is used time-to-time today as part of the recruiting effort to show that americans have no backbone. they aren't going to stand up to radical islamists. radical islamists can have their will because america is a
toothless tiger unwilling to enforce anything. they send a boat to tag along beyond a convoy, but -- and we may send planes to blow up a tyrant like president clinton did. seems like it was an aspirin factory or something more serious but that is not shock and awe as we have shown some places before. so when the recruiting -- of course they use the toothless if he canless united states examples like after the uss cole i had a service member tell me he was there and they
couldn't believe that anybody could attack a united states naval ship. and bavelly, we don't do anything -- and basically, we don't do anything. one of president reagan's great regrets was after -- i think it was probably iran behind the bombing of the marine barracks in beirut where we lost about 300 precious ma even lives, congress made clear we aren't funding anything else, and we pulled out another recruiting tool for radical islamists. so the clinton administration -- and even that example from
beirut from under such a great american president as ronald reagan, going back to 1979 when radical islam first committed an act of war against the united states, that was in response to president carter, at least it followed his pronouncement that the eye tolla khomeini was a -- ayatolla khomeini was a man of peace. they had the hostages and it seemed to me as a member of the united states army and watching the news from fort benning. they kept saying the students have the hostages and i kept thinking if president carter will say, the students have the hostages then, you get them back to us within 48 hours 72
hours, otherwise you are going to see the entire power of the united states military coming at iran and heaven help you if you harm our hostages at all. we may just wipe tehran off the map if you do and you as part of it. i really felt like they would release the hostages and say see, the students had them. but very quickly they figured out that the carter administration was not going to use the u.s. power and that all it was going to do was basically beg for the hostages to be released until they scaled back an effort to rescue the hostages that ended up being inadequate because the carter administration didn't authorize enough helicopters.
they needed six. general boykin confirmed, that they needed six to get to the staging area, crossing 00 miles or so of desert. they had turbine engines and they expected that they might lose as many as 50% of the choppers, but they had to have six get to the staging area, c-130 and other aircraft and get ready and launch because they knew where the hostages were. but the carter administration didn't allow enough helicopters to get there with six. they got there with five and as general boykin confirmed when they got there with five then they had to abort -- they had to have a minimum of six to make it work, and perhaps the helicopter
pilot got disoriented. the chopper leaned and blades went through the c-130 and people on the c-130 and helicopter were killed. but it goes back to having a commander in chief that's not willing to do everything he can to use our power to save american lives and to send a message around the world, don't mess with the united states. don't mess with our embassy. don't mess with our embassy workers, because if you do, there will be a powerful price to pay. the message instead was, we got the power, but we don't have the backbone to use it. and that's been carried out. and of course, president reagan used american power to send a message. president george h.w. bush after kuwait was invaded by
iraq, i love the fact, as a former military member that president george h.w. bush was a former military member, and instead of trying to micromanage the freing of kuwait -- freing of kuwait, instead of micromanaging, president bush told the leaders the goal is to liberate kuwait and told them how many people we would need in theater before we attacked. hit them hard with bombing, loosen them up and the mission went incredibly well until until democrats in congress started yelling in essence that president bush needed to stop stop stop, in the media, stop,
stop stop. they're not fight, they can't stand up against us. please stop, you're being too brutal. so president bush because of the left was persuaded not to go all the way to baghdad at that time. and then later he was beat up by the left in 199 for not going ahead and taking out saddam when he had the chance. so it's an interesting place to work here but mr. speaker, i go through that history so we understand where we stand historically with radical islam and the northeast. they don't see us with the kind of fear that they should. now, in this article from "the wall street journal" that started out it's from april 17 by carol lee and jay solomon president obama suggested on friday that iran could receive significant economic relief
immediately after concluding a deal to curb its nuclear program, a gesture toward one of tehran's key demands. it's great tehran makes demands, the president falls right in line, secretary kerry falls right in line as if he's going to be throwing medals over the white house fence that belong to somebody else. it's great. they just fall right in line. ok, iran, we beg you, do a deal with, at least come out and announce with us, we have a deal. we'll do anything you want. that's the way it's appearing, not only to the radical islamist of the world, it sure seems they have our president wrapped around their little finger, that they can get anything they want. what should they think after the taliban in afghanistan was begged by the obama administration to, gee, just sit
down with us. we'll buy you a wond -- we'll buy you wonderful officers in qatar, we'll give you international prominence you sit down we'll let murderers go. of your taliban leaders. just sit down. that's all we're asking. and it sent a pretty clear message, that gets around they understand who they're dealing with. and page three of the four-page article from "the wall street journal" says this, the obama administration estimates iran has between 100 billion or 140 billion of its oil revenue frozen in offshore accounts as a result of sanctions. u.s. officials say they expect tehran to gain access to these funds in phases as part of a final deal. iran could receive somewhere between $30 billion and $50 billion upon the signing the --
upon signing the agreement, said congressional officials briefed by the administration. so that's where from "the wall street journal." two days later, april 19, an article by jennifer reuben that says "washington post," -- that says "washington post": obama is prepared to give iran anything and everything far deal. then it says days after releasing the frame without objection secretary kerry reaffirmed that the united states would insist on phased in sanction relief. iran's ayatollah khomeini rebuked that suggestion and declared he would insist on sanctions relief up front. on friday, the president cleared up matters by hanging kerry out to dry, pulling the rug out from under his dwindling bad of supporters and telling the world that phased negotiations were up for grabs.
the president declared, with respect to the issue of sanctions coming down apparently i guess this is a quote from the president work respect to the issue of sanctions coming down i don't want to get out ahead of john kerry and the negotiators in terms of how to craft this, i would just make a general observation and that is that house saxes -- sanctions are lessened, how we snap back sanctions if there's a violation, there are a lot of different mechanisms and ways to do that. part of john's job and part of the iranian negotiator's job and part of the p-5 plus one's job is to sometimes find formulas that get to our main concerns while allowing the other side to make a presentation to their body politic that is more acceptable. so going down the article, it
says, this is a dramatic change in the administration's position and a foolish one. we know as former secretaries of state henry kissinger and george schultz have warned snap back sanctions are cumbersome and hugely ineffective. sanctions, once lifted are enormously difficult to reinstate after western powers have commenced doing business. inspections, not even of the go everywhere any time variety are never foolproof and the parties contemplate a system designed for endless wrangling about whether violations have occurred. but wait, the article says, it gets worse. "the wall street journal" reports, quote the obama administration estimates iran has between $100 billion and $40
billion of its oil revenue frozen in offshore accounts as a result of sanctions. further down in the quote, the moneys of course, will be instantly available to fund terrorist activities well, i guess that wouldn't be president obama saying that because apparently he hadn't recognized that but ok. the article says that would be a huge boost to iran's economy given upfront with no evidence of compliance and then it says, the moneys, of course will be instantly available to fund terrorist abblingtivities and iranian sur fwats in yemen, syria, and elsewhere. then a quote, obama is willing to grant iran access to funds that equate to about 10% of its g.d.p., iran's g.d.p., just for signing a deal.
that percentage boost is equivalent to $1.7 trillion injection into the u.s. economy today which is twice the dollar amount of the 2009 stimulus package. unquote. that was explained by c.e.o. michael mckopsky. quote this was a terrific present to iran for its army day celebration on saturday when the regime showed off some of its weapons to slogans of death to america and death to israel. equal hi dismaying was obama's minimization of russia's announcement to sell 1-300 surface to air missile batteries to iran which will make a military strike against iran's nuclear facility much harder. perhaps obama was trying to save face by this russian move or
perhaps he no longer opposes the russian sale because it will make harder for israel to spoil the nuclear deal through military action. if israelis are expressing, quote, shock and amazement friday night at u.s. president barack obama's stated openness to iran's demand for the immediate lifting of all economic sanctions and his defense of russia's agreement to supply sophisticated air defense system to iran, they should not be. the president will give the iranians anything and everything to get this deal. quote, it's deeply troubling that president obama declined to publicly reject iranian's supreme leader demand that all economic sanctions against iran be lifted upon concluding of final nuclear agreement, senator mark kirk told "right turn."
the president is clearly leaving open the door for significant sanctions relief to iran up front to secure a controversial deal that will neither significantly nor permanently dismantle iran's vast capabilities to make nuclear weapons. the president, who once declared the framework a historic deal, has been forced to concede there is no deal. now he's signaling the final deal will be much worse than he or his defenders ever suggested was possible. he promised to dismantle iran's nuclear weapons program. now he is locking it in. he once insisted on robust inspections and gradual lifting of sanctions. those will go by the wayside too. ultimately congress, the 2016 presidential candidates, our
allies, and the american people will need to explain that total appeasement which is where this is leading, will not be acceptable. they will then have to devise the means for stopping obama or immediately reversing his, quote, diplomacy, unquote which is more like promising to make a ransom payment. unfortunately for the saudis that likely means beginning an arms race as they seek a bomb of their own. it'll be quite a legacy if obama gets his way. yeah. it's -- this president's foreign policy in the northeast, north africa -- in the middle east north africa, has created chaos. then april 20, this article from "washington freebie con," state department won't rule out $50 billion signing bonus for iran. state department on monday would not rule out iran -- giving iran
up to $50 billion as a so-called signing bonus. the article goes on to say experts have said this multibillion dollar signing bonus option, which was first reported by "the wall street journal," could be the largest cash infusion to a terror backing regime in recent memory. so they're getting access to money, the article points out, and so then mr. speaker, i wanted to take us back to march 2 from the blaze -- from "the blaze" where they report on president obama saying netanyahu has been wrong on iran. they have this quote in the article and it quotes from reuters quote netanyahu, this is a quote from obama reported by reuters netanyahu has made all sorts of claims. this was going to be a terrible deal. this was going to result in iran
getting $50 billion worth of relief. obama told roiters in an interview monday. quote iran would not abide by the agreement. none of that has come true. well, that was march 2 and now here we are on april 22 and it turns out everything prime minister netanyahu said has been true. so far everything he said that we've been able to get evidence on has been true. president obama was wrong. prime minister netanyahu was right. knowing president obama to be the big courteous, wonderful man he is i'm sure he will be sending an apology to prime minister netanyahu very soon, since he does owe him one. march 2 he tells reuters that netanyahu was wrong on everything and now just other a month later we find out he was right about everything.
so i think that will be good news when the president admits to israel they were right i was wrong, but by the way, what could we do with that $50 billion that they may let iran have access to? after all the damage, all the americans iran has funded killing and maiming, we could use some of that money. wow, $50 billion? but one final article dated today from john sexton, iran says it will refuse access to iaea inspectors anywhere nationwide. a spokesman for iran's nuclear agency has once again rejected calls to grant iaea access to military sites continuing a war of words on the issue that began sunday. the bottom line mr. speaker, this president is putting the world in jeopardy. he's putting israel in jeopardy.
he's putting us in jeopardy. he's putting all of israel's neighbors in jeopardy. and it's time he woke up and smelled the back lava. i yield -- the baklava. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. swalwell, for 30 minutes. mr. swalwell:
mr. swalwell: mr. speaker i rise this evening to report back to the congress on the progress of the house democratic caucus' group future forum. it is made up of 14 members of congress who are going across the country to talk about issues facing young americans. we launched just last thursday. we've gone to new york boston and san francisco and we're just warming up. our goal is to listen to not talk to, young americans about issues arranging from student loan debts, climate change,
access toship and anything on their mind or standing in their way in achieving their dreams, hopes and aspirations. i encourage anyone watching tonight across america to tweet at me and to tweet at us so we can address your concerns here on the house floor and across the country. we started thursday evening in new york city. i was joined by democratic policy and communications chair steve israel congresswoman grace meng, who represents the queens area and congressman seth moulton. our first stop was at district co-work space in manhattan. you can see here in this photo, this was not just any rigid stuffy town hall. we invited young entrepreneurs
across manhattan and asked them what stands in your way from achieving your startup success? you have in this room these young, energetic entrepreneurs. they are ready to risk it all for their big idea. they are all millenials aged 18-35. and it was a very informal fluid session. what we heard was not surprising. but it was very striking. for too many of them when we asked how many of you have student loan debt their hands went up. for too many of them, when we asked, how much is your student loan debt, their hands stayed up when i said is it above $25000,
$50,000 or $100,000. then i asked my colleagues asked, what would you do with that money, what would you spend it on if you weren't spending it every month on your student loan debt? and these young business-minded people said, i wouldn't buy a new toy or boat or have fun for myself, they said i would invest it in my company. i would invest it in my company. and what do we know happens when entrepreneurs invest money in their company? they create jobs. they create growth around their industry that put more and more americans to work. future forum members learned a lot and what we learned was that student loan debt is a barrier,
not just a barrier, it is a tall brick wall that is standing in the way of an entire generation realizing their entrepreneurial dreams. what we heard at district co-work in new york was not unique. in san francisco, we went and visited their impact club. you have tall ceilings, nothing on the walls. they are barely painted, no carpet on the floor, just a building filled with a lot of energy, a lot of good ideas. but a lot of challenges standing in their way. at hives, these young entrepreneurs, just like other entrepreneurs across the
country they told us student loan debt is standing in their way. 41 million young americans have a collective amount of $1.3 trillion in student loan debt. we heard from people at hives that their debt was not just standing in the way of starting their own business but we asked the room and at this event i was joined by congressman gal egg oost and congressman aguilar and congressman kilmer of tacoma, washington, we asked the room how many of you own a home. contradicts, dead silence. how many of you have parents who own a home?
most of their hands went up. how many of you are renters now? most of their hands stayed up. how many of you fear that you will not be able to ever own a home in your life? and again these young people full of energy great ideas, great education, their hands stayed up. what's standing in the way, we asked? the hungs of dollars a month -- the hundreds of dollars a month they are paying in student loan debt. home ownership one of the bedrocks of the american dream to have something to call your own something that we fought during our independence as a country, that right for property to chart your own course, have your own piece of land now an
entire generation of millenial americans, 80 million of them have mounting student loan debt that is going to delay their ability to buy a home. that is going to delay their ability to start and have a family, that is going to delay their opportunity to chase their dreams. while we were in california, we also visited a college in the 15th district of california, which i'm proud to represent. at the college, we assembled over 100 community college students and we asked them how much student debt do you think you'll have by the time you take your first post-college job? and what we learned there again very, very bewildered.
most anticipated to have $25,000 to $50,000 in student loan debt. we did it in an active way. we asked students to text in their answers. we polled the group and said are you able to take a full load of courses so you can get out of community college as fast as possible and move on to a four-year university or move on to your career field? most of them said that they couldn't. one student told us he worked three jobs and the jobs, they were all mostly the same. they weren't jobs that were going to put them into the area of industry they would hope and aspire to be in. they were retail and restaurant jobs. you know the members of future forum could identify with this. congressman kilmer talked about
washing dishes in college. and another talked about working as a restaurant server and i talked about being an unpaid intern and working at tortilla coast to make things work. things are different. tuition continues to go up and these students told us that they are taking a number of odd jobs just to pay for the rising costs of community college. we talked about the president's plan during the state of the union in this very chamber to offer free community college to anyone who was qualified and able and willing. the students were hopeful, but not too optimistic. they see too many barriers and walls here in washington to get anything done that could help them.
we also asked the students to participate in a word cloud, a word cloud is, you text in an answer and on the screen behind us put different words in response to different answers and we asked the students, what would you do if you didn't have student debt every month? what would your payment money go to? and again, no one said they were going to buy a bunch of toys or go on a bunch of fancy vacations. they said that they would probably buy a car so they didn't have to take the bus or take the bart to class. they would hope to buy their first home. they would invest, which would help the economy. future forum was also at san francisco state university and a young girl at san francisco state university as we talked
about solutions to address rising tuition rates for current students and the debt burden that 41 million americans carry. one san francisco state student told us that she had a dual challenge in her house. she was trying to pay for her own education make it by, not qualifying for many student loans while her mother also had $200,000 of her own student debt. this is a family matter. this is a family matter, not just for that young san francisco state student but for millions of young people across the country. this debt is beginning to pile up and affect multiple generations. we had the honor of going to boston where we were hosted by congressman joe kennedy and seth
moulton. we visited thermal fisher scientific and we met with young scientists people who invested in their own future by taking student loans and going to college and getting many cases, graduate degrees to work in the field of science to work in the field of therapies and devices and hoping to play a critical role in helping people and making the world a better place. at thermal fisher, these young sciencists told us exactly what we heard in san francisco and in new york city their student loan debt weighs on them.
it holds them down like an anchor, but something happened at the thermal fisher visit that we didn't expect. we had a room full of young entrepreneurs, young scientists, but there was a mother who showed up. she kind of confessed, well, i know this event was billed as a millenial event, but she told us she was worried about her daughter. her daughter had gone to college, just as we as a society told young people that you have to do. her daughter took out a number of student loans, and her daughter lives at home and can't find a job. what we are seeing for our millenial generation and was
expressed by this mother, is that we are at risk of becoming a permanent boomer and generation. -- boomerang generation. we go out and get our education and technical skills, but because of the rising cost of tuition we boomerang back home. and this mother and this mother told us, it doesn't just weigh on the daughter, who is trying to find a job with a college degree, it weighs on the entire household. with 41 million young people across our country, with $1.3 trillion in student loan debt, imagine how many families are affected by this. and these are typically your parents who are just starting to
realize their golden years. they work so hard. paid into social security. hopefully had a pension. and they want to retire. want to travel. maybe take up a hobby. maybe join a local club. but their hopes and dreams, their golden retirement, is being affected by children who are returning to the home and need their support. we heard this all across america on this tour. this is a family matter. the student loan debt crisis in our country. finally in the boston area, we
also went to greentown labs a clean tech incubator i visited with congressmen moulton and kennedy in somerville, massachusetts. here we heard again about student loan debt but we also were asked by a number of the people at this event what's standing in the way of fixing this problem? we actually asked the audience, what do you think from your perspective? what do you think is standing in the way? so many of them told us, campaign finance laws. smart young crowd at greentown labs. campaign finance laws. people in the audience told us, young entrepreneurs, i thought they were focused like a laser
on their idea and raising money for their first and second round of funding and trying to scale up and get their idea off the ground. no, these young people they get it. they told us exactly what the problem was. that because of unlimited amounts of money that can be spent in elections today there's less courage in the congress to do big things, tackle big problems and help a whole country of people who need it. they asked us about climate change. this was the first laboratory we had visited on the tour and we met with a number of young scientists working in the clean tech and clean energy area. they asked us about climate change and what we were doing in congress to address it. i want to just go to some of the people who have tweeted in to us about future forum this evening
and what their thoughts are and one person said that -- i'll first mention hive who tweeted at us from san francisco, that they are excited about the ideas presented and the issues raised let's get to work. i want to tell you how we're getting to work. this wasn't just a one way talking to with millenials. through #futureforum, through medium.com and the article we wrote and posted there, and through the information we collected across the country, we're actually putting the ball in the court of the young entrepreneurs and students who are charting this new economy. and we told them, help us crowd source ideas. that can move america forward. they gave us some.
at these visits. with student loan debt being probably the biggest, most pressing issue, there was a general consensus that there's two groups affected by this. the first group are the students who are enrolled right now and paying tuition and accruing debt. the second group are the 41 million young americans who already have student loan debt. the solutions that were thrown at us for the students who are in school now or who will be in school, treat public education as a public good. find a way to make sure that any qualified capable person who wants to go to college can do so and keep the costs as low or as next to zero as you can. we had people who were so excited about the future forum who had graduated college 30, 40
years ago who came out and talked to us and they harkened back to a time in california where in the u.c. and cal state system, tuition was essentially free. essentially free. they even threw in the yearbook. but the return on investment was a whole generation of educated individuals who would contribute to the greatest economy in the united states. california. their eyes popped out when they saw how much it costs today to go to u.c. berkley. $33,000. $33,000 today is what it cottses a year for a student to go to u.c. berkley. and people who had attended 20, 30 years ago talked about when
it was almost next to nothing. $33,000 a year. congressman gallego, when he looked at that number, he had gone to harvard. harvard is the berkley of the east. congressman gallego looked at that number and he said, that's about what i paid when i graduated from harvard in the early 2000's. $33,000 a year. treat education as a public good. keep interest rates as low as possible. the consensus among people that met with us, these current students and entrepreneurs was the government should make no money on interest rates on loans that it gives to students. what about the 41 million young americans who have the $1.3 trillion in debt? well, there was a general consensus that those debt
holders should be able to refinance their student loans. you can refinance an auto loan. you can refinance your home loan. but for the 86% of loans that are federal loans, of those 41 million americans, you can't refinance them. congressman joe courtney, a colleague of mine from connecticut, he has a bill that would allow just that. and our future forum members are on that bill and we're hoping that it gets a vote in this congress because this should be a bipartisan issue. those 41 million americans are not democrats they're not all democrats, they're not all republicans they're hopeful aspirational young people. who should benefit from the same refinancing laws that you can use with your home mortgage or your auto.
there were other big ideas no idea was too big or small for this crowd. there was the proposal to have a jubilee a jubilee for all of the federally funded student loans. to take every were rower return -- every boar rorer, return that -- borrower return that money to zero and watch where the money would go. the hypothesis was if these students didn't to to pay from $100 to $1,000 every month, they're not going to pocket the money, they'll put the money back in the economy and it would essentially be a stimulus. so i encourage everyone across the country, every young person every parent of a young person grandparent of a young person, give us your ideas. future forum is just getting started. we already are working with our
colleague, congresswoman debbie dingell who is excited and eager to host us in michigan and other colleagues who want to bring us to their states to talk to young people. but give us your ideas. you can tweet them at #futureforum. put it on instagram. you can find us on facebook. but tweet, facebook instagram, use social media, #futureforum, give us your idea. because the goal is for us to listen to you and then work here in a bipartisan way to act on your behalf. this conversation will continue. our work will go on. until we have lifted the burden that stands in the way of young aspirational entrepreneurs. thank you mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 20 15, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher for 30 minutes. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much mr. chairman. i rise today to draw the attention of the american people and my colleagues to an issue that is rapidly coming to the floor of the house and it is an issue that's coming so rapidly some people might not notice the overwhelming magnitude of this issue. in fact, it is an issue that most people are bored with, they don't like to discuss it, they think it's so complicated they don't pay any attention. unfortunately, the fact that little attention is being paid to this issue may result in major damage to the well being of the american people. what i'm trying to say is, there's legislation that will cause great harm to the american
people, our security and to our prosperity, and it is something that was coming to a vote and we could well lose unless the american people mobilize and the people in this hall pay attention to the interests of the american people as a whole and not to make international corporations that have been manipulating this issue. what am i talking about? i'm not talking about tissue i'm talking about an issue that has, over the years, been taken for granted that america would be the pre-emfeint -- preeminent technology power in the world. in fact, it has been our technology superiority that's led to the prosperity of average americans, to the standard of living that we have, and also to our safety and security as a nation. it isn't that americans have worked so hard and we have worked hard, but we have coupled
work with technology. in fact, people work hard all over the world but they haven't had the patent protection, the protection for the intellectual rights of ownership and the development of new technology, they have, the people around the world haven't had this and thus they have had standards of living very low for ordinary people and then of course the rich at the top. what we have had in our country is a protection of intellectual property rights by inventors. it's actually written into our constitution. in fact, the word right is only used once in the body of the constitution. there's the bill of rights but the word right is only related to the right that the constitution declares for those who, writers and inventors who have created something, they have a right to control it and own it for a given period of
time. this has work sod well for the united states. we have made sure that our people were competitive with the overseas populations. and our people produced the wealth that was necessary for high paying jobs. produced the wealth that was necessary for standards of living. it comes back to the fact that we have recognized as a right of ownership the creativity and genius of our own people. over the last two decades, most people have not understood that there has been a concealed effort to destroy the patent rights of the american people. let me repeat that. for the last two decades we have been fighting a very quiet fight, people haven't even noticed it, against large international corporations. multinationals. who would destroy the patent rights of the american people. why to they want to do that? because they want to steal the
creation of our own inventors without having to pay for that right. this is the ultimate little guy versus big guy, david and goliath fight i have ever seen in washington, d.c. but it's also one it's also one of the quietest that people have tried their best to keep out of the public eye. how could it be that congress could even conceive of this, where you have big corporations coming to say, let's neuter the rights of the little guy, of little americans? how would this happen? how could anyone imagine that a representative body like the house of representatives would do anything like that? well of course they're not coming to this body and going to the committee of jurisdiction, which is the judiciary committee claiming that they want to steal from little guys.
and that they want to take people's ideas and use them without paying compensation for them. they don't say that. they have had to create what i call the strawman argument. now that's a traditional way of debate. it's in the debate books. if you can't beat your opponent in a debate create a strawman. create an image that you are actually attacking this guy, the straw man when in reality you're attacking somebody else. somebody else's going to suffer the pain. and so this man's arguments, the straw man arguments, don't, you know, you can handle them, you can say how horrible that strawman is and his arguments mean nothing, well, because that's not really the guy who's being attacked. it's the other man and woman down there, the small inventors they're the ones who are going to feel it. but yet you don't hear that from those proponents of the legislation, that as i am warning speech on its way to the house floor.
the straw man argument was first used 20 years ago when i got here. they were trying to suggest that we have to make major changes in our patent law because there's these heinous submarine patents over and over again the submarine patents were going to -- such a horrible impact on businesses because they would come up and charge people for patents that the business didn't even know existed. submarine patents, that's what went away. that's no longer -- they talk about submarine patents. now what's helping them create a straw man argument that will result in the massive theft of intellectual property rights from america's most creative people no, the boogman now is called the patent troll. that's it. the patent troll. these huge corporations have spent millions, tens of
millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars over these last few years trying to promote this image that there is a patent troll out there, that sounds sinister, doesn't it? that has to be defeated. and they have proposed legislation in the name of defeating a patent troll, because that sounds very sinister, rather than legislation that permits large corporations to get away with stealing the patent rights from small inventors in the united states. well how does did this troll word come about? it's a relatively new word. when i first got here, they were calling them submarine patents. that's the evil force. troll came about, i had a businessman who was an executive of a major company, who was actually now changing sides and he decided, my gosh no, he can't go along with this destruction of americans'
rights to own what they've created. he told me about how it was decided. he was in a room with senior executives mainly from the electronics industry and they ntd e omayg, now, what is the most sinister sounding word that we can come up with in order to divert the attention of the people away from the fact that our real target are these small inventors? because everybody has a soft spot in their heart for small inventors. so they're going to create a false image some way. what can we do? what word can we use to fool the american people into thinking that this is an evil force that we're trying to stop when in reality they're trying to beat down small inventors? well, this guy, they went around the room and the guy was telling me said, i'll tell you, i actually suggested that they use the word patent pirate. the patent pirate.
that's how horrible it is. but no. by the time they got around to the end of the group, to the last part of the group they had all heart patent troll. which is even worse than patent pirate. so they all agreed that this would be the word that we will use to receive the american people -- deceive the american people. that's what it was all about. and this businessman was very upfront with me about the cynical nature of this type of manipulation. well, we can't -- obviously no one could come here and say, we want to eliminate the rights of the american people to sue for damages and we can't eliminate the rights of small inventors to actually try to get their money for something that they've invented and spent their whole lifetime trying to create, but what they can do is
try to get legislation that will eliminate the ability of patent trolls to function. unfortunately every single item that is being presented as a means to control patent trolls actually does what? it hurts every single one of them -- it hurts, every single one of them does damage to the little guys trying to protect their patent rights. if you have -- and everything they're presenting in this legislation is equivalent to by the way, it would be the equivalent if someone says we've got this horrible thing about frivolous lawsuits, because in fact what the businessmen often are complaining about and claiming that trolls are being the ones who are doing this, what they're really talking about are frivolous lawsuits. well there are frivolous
lawsuits throughout our entire justice system and court system. would we then say that because there are some lawyers who are willing to scam the system or that we know that there are some people who will file frivolous lawsuits, that we should eliminate the rights of the american people to sue for damages when they have been damaged by someone or sue to protect their rights when their rights have been violated? no. but that's what's going on here. in the name of stopping the trolls which they made up the term we are being asked to support legislation that dramatically eliminates the rights and protections of honest inventors. although that's not what's being said. every time there's a debate. we're for the small inventer, we're for the small inventor. when every single one of the provisions hurts the small inventor. what's happening you're seeing
that the legislation being pushed forward now is under -- it's under a bill which is h.r. 9, it's already in the committee. it was a bill that went through last year and what happened is, yes, it went through last year with the same sort of, oh we're not really trying to hurt the little guy, but knowing that that's what it was doing, because what happened is, yeah, the legislation passed this body, the legislation passed this body. to show you how bad it was i managed to lead the fight and have one amendment that got one of the bad provisions out. that provision was if a small inventer feels that the patent office is not -- has not been dealing with him on a legal basis, on a legitimate basis, that he no longer has the right to take his case to court. they were eliminating the right
of our inventors to take their case to court when their government isn't operating legally. now, we managed to push that one back. unfortunately the other provisions of the bill moved forward. but guess what? even though it would hurt small inventors and technology investors and universities, that bill went forward out of this body, but it was stopped in the senate. it was stopped in the senate because some of these technology laboratories, and some small inventors as well, but mainly the universities stepped forward and said, wait a minute, you're trying to supposedly get patent trolls but what you're doing is going to undercut us. and it was analyzed that the result of that legislation if signed into law and passed through the senate would have decreased the value of patents owned by our universities. that's a major source of their income, is their patents because they have laboratories
and research centers, that that would have negated about half the value of the patents that they own. this would have been a disaster. luckily, luckily the universities spoke up and they need to speak up in the house this time because it's the same bill they're trying to put through the house and trying to ship it over to the senate again. and we need to make sure that we mobilize and let those people in elected office, whether they're congressmen or senator, let them know they have to pay attention to what the affects of this will be on our universities, what it will be on yes, and on the small inventors. it is unconscionable that we have these huge multinational corporations in a power grab like this. and why is it that they're able to do this? this attack on little guys, on average americans who have dedicated their life to
developing a new technology -- technological idea? why is that? because they are able to give major campaign contributions. i'm not talking about anybody's vote being bought. i don't believe that that happens here and i know that puts me -- a lot of people claim that, but i don't claim that. what i do know is that contributors get the attention of the member of congress or the senate. that's what happens. these big megacorporations, and they're multinational corporations by and large, have bought the attention of these people and have made their argument. so we have 90% of the members of congress in the senate who are yawning and nobody's talking to them about the bill. but they've got these other 10% who have donated to their campaigns are able to make the argument. if we are to protect our
prosperity, if we are to protect our security, we have got to move forward and interact with those people who are elected to represent us in the congress and the united states senate. that's the only thing that will thwart these multinationals and their ability to buy the attention of a certain number of americans of congress. the congress will not pay attention unless the universities, unless the average working people, the voters in their district come and see them and talk to them and say we do not want our rights to be diminished. we don't want any of our rights, but especially our patent rights. which are the rights that protect our jobs because it makes us competitive with overseas. and it produces wealth enough for average people to live well in our country. well, we need to make sure that these huge corporations don't run rough shod over the rest of us because they themselves now, as i say, they haven't bought votes, they've bought
attention. we need to call attention to this issue and it is up before the judiciary committee. we're talking about h.r. 9. a piece of legislation that will do a tremendous damage to the american people by cutting off the very constitutional right that our founding fathers knew was so important. that is the right to own for a given period of time any type of technology creation and creative genius that you have as a writer or an inventor. this is the little guys versus the big guys. this is david versus goliath. but i will tell you, we little guys need to stick together and if we do, we will win. that's what america is all about. we can and will win. we will not let cynical powerful forces like those who sit around a room and say, what's the bad word that we can come up with that will scare everybody into supporting our
restrictions and our diminishing of patent rights the cynical people who came up with the word troll, well what's wrong with this, by the way? let me just note that this bill h.r. 9 will greatly diminish patent protection, but, for example, it destroys is the right of discovery. it means that if people actually invest in a small inventor, let's say someone, a small inventor needs an investor, of course they do, they're not like this huge corporation, they need someone to invest. but later on the big corporation does what? steals that invention and in order to, what? these big corporations are sued all the time for infringement. what infringement means is they are arrogantly taking something that somebody else, somebody that's been patented, and ignoring the patent put it into their product and then say, well sue me. knowing that the little guys have trouble suing because they
don't have the money. well, if anybody is invested in that inventor and the invept venter sues for in-- inventor sues for infringement, but let's say his lawyers aren't as good as he loses that case. how they're changing the rules here is then all of a sudden all of the expenses of that big company, the legal expenses will have to be picked up by this small inventor. . oh, my gosh, what happens when that happens? you'll never get anybody to invest in that small inventor because the law not only says the inventor will pay for the cost of asking for the infringement case but anybody who has invested in his invention will also have to bear that burden. who is going to want to become liable if a big company starts stealing and they can't prove it in court. this destroys also, for example the bill destroyed treble damages. right now if a big company decides to steal from late --
from a little guy, if the little guy can prove this guy knew that that was my patent and he's stealing my intellectual property, if he can prove that then they get treble damages -- triple damages. that's been what we've had all along that permits the little guy to have legal counsel because if it's just simply getting the money back that he has been -- that he's lost well, this is damages because if he gets a certain amount because he's been violated. if you eliminate that, how will these little guys get a lawyer? these big guys are trying to eliminate triple damages so the little guys can't get lawyers. what we've done, by doing these things, this h.r. 9 will dramatically, dramatically decrease the value of patents held by our major universities
held by retirement accounts held by our laboratories. people who own these patents now, by the way let's -- let me tell you what a that thent troll what they claim a patent troll to be. and how they claim that this is bad. a patent troll, according to these huge corporate interests, a patent troll is someone who didn't invent something but now has the rights to sue them because that investor, the quote , troll, has purchased the patent rights to certain technologies. now let me note that a patent sometimes runs around 10 to 20 years a patent owner can own his patent. an inventor is granted the patent and for 17 years they own that patent. many of them don't have any money and they can't even develop it so they have to have investors. some of them face the theft of their technology and they don't
have the money to put out and to they themselves challenge in court their right -- that their rights have been violated. it's like a piece of property. if somebody comes and builds a railroad track across your property and refuses to give you any compensation for it, you have a right to sue but some of the little guys don't have enough money to sue. in this case, what we've got is legal entities that are not involved with actually the invention but they'll come in and say i will invest in your patent so you will have enough money to sue these big guys because they are stealing from you. or they just buy the patent outright and then they own that property for a given period of time and then they sue. there's nothing wrong, i believe, with someone stepping forward and buying the property rights of an inventor and then enforcing it through our court
system. there is nothing wrong with that. but we have been told that these are all frivolous lawsuits by the trolls. they're not. some of them are like this, that a troll supposedly, is nothing more than an investor who has bought the rights, the property rights of an inventor. of the person who owned the property in the first place. well, what we have is these multinational corporations trying to vilify someone who comes in and buys patent rights from small inventors and then using that person to destroy all of the patent rights of the small inventor. we -- luckily we have a bill in the senate which is senate bill 632 that's chris coombs from delaware who actually has a piece of legislation to try to strengthen people's patent rights and in some way
basically, and it eliminates some of the you might say, bad tactics that were used by people who are -- who were involved with frivolous lawsuits in the technology area. and he takes care of that without greatly diminishing the patent rights of real inventors. we also have a bill with senator john conyers here in the house and that bill protects the small guy while trying to improve the patent office. by the way what his bill does is ensure that all the patent fees that go into the patent office stay there and thus improve the quality of the patents that our people have. over $1 billion has been taken from the patent office in the last 10 years in order to -- and goes into the general fund but it should be being spent trying to protect the -- trying to make
the system work of property ownership, intellectual property owner shep by investors. that's the last i have on that piece of legislation, h.r. 9, which deserves the attention of the american people. i'd like to end my time tonight talking about one other issue, very quickly. today, i introduced legislation that will, h.r. 1940 which basically says that the federal government shall not interfere in those states that have eliminated the penalties on marijuana use and sales or have allowed the operation of medical marijuana dispenseries. this legislation h.r. 1940, would basically leave it up to the states as to whether or not people should be permitted to use marijuana, especially
medical marijuana. i don't see any reason why the people of the united states should face a -- the type of controls and the type of police state activity that impacts their life by people whether they're well meaning or not who have set up a bureaucratic, a, basically it's a bureaucratic law enforcement state that will activate and prevent people from living their own lives. if indeed someone is using marijuana for medical purposes especially, but also even for recreational use someone is in their backyard smoking some marijuana we should not spend limited dollars, we have limited tax dollars here, we're cutting veterans' benefits, we're cutting down on people who need help, but then we're spending it on trying to put in jail someone who is smoking marijuana in
their backyard or trying to supply someone with some marijuana to smoke in their backyard? that is absolutely absurd. and my bill h.r. 1940, will insist that if a state has legalized the use of marijuana or the medical use of marijuana that the federal government cannot infringe upon that. at a time -- it's sort of like if you see a guy, over in the corner of a park and he's surrounded by policemen and they throw him to the ground and they handcuff him and put him in jail and they go through the court procedure the judges, all these expenses and that's for marijuana. versus the other end of the park where some lady is getting raped but there's no misplen there -- policemen there and they spent all their money focusing on the people smoking marijuana. that makes no sense. when you have limited dollars, we should respect people's right to live their own lives. if they make mistakes, which
they do, they have to live with those mistakes. i would ask my colleagues to support h.r. 1940, which is consistent with america's laws that should be made, criminal law should be made at the state and local level and not at the federal level, we should not have a federal police force, knocking in doors, going into people's homes, spending huge amounts of money in order to prevent people from personal behavior, personal consumption behavior. i ask my colleagues, you believe in liberty, believe what our founding fathers believed in, support a strong patent system and oppose h.r. 9 and then support my legislation h.r. 1940, which will restore to the american people and to the states therein the right to control criminal law and their own personal behavior. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion?
mr. rohrabacher: i move that we -- mr. speaker i do move that the house now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it, the motion to adjourn is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m.
cyberthieves whether hostile, foreign agents or money seeking criminals take stolen credit card numbers access medical records, leak proprietary information, and publish confidential emails. affecting tense of millions of americans. this situation cannot continue. the house has passed signer security information sharing legislation with strong majorities in the past two congresses. ranking member schiff congresses. nking member schiff and i have continued this bipartisan tradition working closely together to draft a bill that will increase the security of our networks while protecting users' privacy. i want to thank, i see mr. ruppersberger is here, he sponsored this legislation last time. along with chairman rogers, who is now retired. i do want to give them a special thanks and gratitude and hope that we can get this bill across the floor this year. we have also worked closely with leadership, chairman mccaul, chairman goodlatte, and the senate intelligence committee to ensure that our bills complement
each other. the protecting cybernetworks act address a core problem in our digital security infrastructure. because of legal ambiguities many companies are afraid to share information about cyberthreats with each other or with the government. if a company sees some threat or attack, this bill will allow the company to quickly report information about the problem without fearing a lawsuit so that other companies can take measures to protect themselves. the bill encourages three kinds of sharing, private to private, government to private, and private to government. in that third scenario, the bill allows companies to share cyberthreat information with a variety of government agencies. if banks are comfortable sharing with the treasury department they can share with treasury. if utilities prefer sharing with the department of energy, they can share with energy. if companies want to share with the department of homeland security, the justice department, or the commerce department, they can share with them. the only sharing that this bill does not encourage is direct
sharing to department of defense or the national security agencies. companies can still share with d.o.d. and n.s.a. but they will not receive any new liability protections. this bill does not provide the government with any new surveillance authorities. to the contrary, it includes robust privacy protections, it only authorizes the sharing of cyberthreat indicators and technical information like malware signatures and malicious code. before companies share with the federal government they must remove all personal information. if companies don't follow those requirements, there is no liability protection. furthermore, a government agency that receives the information must scrub it a second time. this will ensure all personal information has been removed. only then can the information be forwarded to other federal agencies. finally, the bill provides for strong public and congressional oversight by requiring a detailed biennial inspector
general's report relating to government's receipt, use, and dissemination of cyberthreat indicators. the privacy and civil liberties oversight board must also submit biannual report on the privacy and civil liberties' impact of the bill of the the increasing scope of cyberattacks cannot be ignored. this bill will strengthen our digital defenses so american consumers and businesses will not be put at the mercy of cybercriminals. i look forward to passing this legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. schiff: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in support of h.r. 1560, the protecting cybernetworks act. at some point, we need to stop just hearing about cyberattacks that steal our most valuable trade secrets and most private information, and actually do something to stop it. at some point, we need to stop talking about the next sony, the next anthem, the next target,
the next j.p. morgan chase, and the next state department hack and actually pass a bill that will help ensure that there will be no next cyberattack. a few weeks back the house intelligence committee held an open hearing on the cyberthreat to america's private sector. we heard from witnesses that their businesses were cyberattacked billions of times a day. not thousands, not millions, but billions. the threat to our economy, our jobs, and our privacy from not acting is massive and it is certain. we see it happening all around us. so we must act now. that's why i'm proud to support this bill the protecting cybernetworks act provides for voluntary information sharing of cyberthreats between and among private and public sectors. it does what no executive order can do. it incentivizes cyberthreat information sharing by providing limited liability protection. now companies can pool their
resources and say to one another, i found this malicious code or this virus in my system. you need to protect yourself against it as well. and now the government can better warn companies of an impending cyberattack just as it can for an approaching hurricane or pending flu outbreak. let me be very clear about this. to get the liability protection a company that chooses to participate must remove any unrelated private information prior to sharing. this is something privacy advocates and i called for when previous information sharing bills came before the house. unlike prior bills, this measure requires the private sector to strip out private information. in fact the bill has two not one privacy scrubs. the first happens when a company shares with another company or the federal government. and the second happens when the federal government shares the information further. this bill even holds the government directly libal if it doesn't do what it's required to do. second, to get the liability
protection, a private company wishing to share with the federal government must go threw a civilian portal. to be clear a company can't go directly to the d.o.d. or n.s.a. and get the bills' liability protection. the lack of a civilian portal in previous bills was another key privacy group criticism and this bill has resolved that issue, too. in fact, of the five main criticisms of prior cyberbills, this bill has resolved each of them. it has private sector privacy stripping of information, it has a civilian portal. it also has narrow restrictions on what the government can use that shared cyberthreat information for. gone is a national security use provision. gone is a vage terrorism use provision. what's left only the most narrow of uses to prevent cyberattacks. to prevent the loss of life. to prevent serious harm to a child. and to prevent other serious felonies. gone, too, is any question of
whether offensive counter measures or hack back is authorized. this bill makes clear you cannot take anything but defensive actions to protect your networks' data. unless anyone be confused, this bill makes clear in black and white legislative text that nothing in the bill authorizes government surveillance in this act, nothing. what this bill does is authorize voluntary private sector sharing of cyberthreat information, and allows the government to be able to quickly share threat information with the private sector just as we need the c.d.c. to put our timely warnings and advice on how to counteract this year's flu strain or how to prevent a local disease from becoming a epidemic. in addition the bill requires strong privacy and civil liberties guidelines and intense reporting requirements. .
it strikes the right balance of addressing the privacy concerns that i had. and we need to further clarify that our a little bit protection only extends to those who act or fair to act reasonably. before closing, i want to thank chairman nunes for his leadership, for working so hard on this bill. it has been a great pleasure to work with you, mr. chairman. i'm grateful for all of the hours and energy and talent that you and your staff have put into making this bill successful. i want to thank all the members of judiciary committee and homeland security committee for working together on this. we had many differences of opinion and we still have some but we kept our eyes firmly on what's best for the american people as a whole. with that we found ways to come together and produce a stronger bill. i hope we can continue to work together as well with the senate and with the white house and all stakeholders to produce an even stronger bill for the president to sign into law. i also want to acknowledge the leadership of our predecessors,
dutch ruppersburger and former chairman mike rogers. we have come this far in part because of the good work that they did during the last couple sessions. and i also want to thank all of those that came to speak with us and provide their input in making this a better bill. every day we delay more privacy is stolen, more jobs are lost and more economic harm is done. let's stop by -- stop watching this happen. let's do something and pass this bill and let's do it now. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california mr. nunes, is recognized. mr. nunes: thank you, madam chair. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia who also is the chairman of the subcommittee on cyber for the house intelligence committee mr. westmoreland. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three
minutes. mr. westmoreland: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, chairman neen us. i rise in -- nunes. i rise in support of h.r. 16 -- 1560, protecting cybernetworks act. the bill safeguards personally identifiable information from being exchanged during the process by requiring private companies and the government to both make sure that no private information is exchanged. my home state of georgia is home to many companies that deal with and secure sensitive data on a daily basis and they are constantly looking for better ways to protect their networks. after the recent cyberattacks against american businesses, i have spoken to industry leaders from georgia and across the nation about how we can make information sharing between the industries and the government stronger and to better protect our nation. cyberterrorism is the new battlefield and adopting to
this new warfare is crucial to eliminating these threats. by allowing american businesses to alert other companies and the government of specific threats and only the threats, the protecting cybernetworks act can help shut down the cybercriminals from stealing sensitive information or causing devastating damage to our networks. the protecting cybernetworks act is a bipartisan step forward in protecting businesses and citizens from being the next victim of a cyberattack. this bill helps devastating cyberattacks from going unnoticed and -- are only shared months after the attack. i'd like to thank chairman nunes, ranking member schiff ranking member on the subcommittee mr. hines, mr. ruppersburger for all the work he's put into this as well as former chairman rogers. i ask for an aye vote on this
and mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. schiff: madam chair, it's a pleasure to yield two minutes to mr. ruppersburger of maryland, former ranking member of the intelligence committee. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. ruppersberger: madam speaker, i rise in support of the bipartisan protecting cybernetworks act and want to thank the members of the house intelligence committee for continuing to prioritize our nation's security over partisan rhetoric. i do want to thank chairman nunes and also ranking member schiff for acknowledging chairman rogers and i. i want to remind you that it was a team approach and you two were very active in helping bring this bill here today as we did before. so thank you for your leadership. it's well worth it and it's very refreshing to see this bipartisanship. this legislation is very -- mr. nunes: if the gentleman will yield? mr. ruppersberger: yes. mr. nunes: i thank the
gentleman for yielding. i thaad you in my opening statement, mr. ruppersberger. without your leadership and chairman -- former chairman rogers' leadership on this bill we would not be here today and i'm encouraged not only by your past support but then by you taking the time to come down here to speak on this bill, i think it says a lot about you and your commitment to national security and the security of our cybernetworks. so thank you and i yield back. mr. ruppersberger: i yield back my time and thank you for your leadership. now, this bill is similar to the bill that chairman rogers and i introduced to promote information sharing between the private and public sectors which is the single most important thing we can do to combat increasingly aggressive cyberattacks. experts believe these attacks are costing american corporations billions of dollars each year. target, home depot are only the beginning. with sony we saw the first destructive attack in our country. it's only a matter of time before our critical infrastructure is targeted. what would happen if someone were to take out our electrical
grid or 911 call centers or air traffic control? and it goes on and on. voluntary information sharing among companies helps our companies defend themselves. voluntary two-way information sharing with the federal government helps improve our ability to protect america against foreign cyberthreats by getting out more and better information faster. there are some concerns i have, as anyone has in any bill, between the bill chairman rogers and i introduced that passed the house. however, i think it's important to reach consensus and move this forward now. can i have another 20 seconds? mr. schiff: madam chair, i'm happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. ruppersberger: our country continues to be cyberattacked. we're under attack as i speak. to do nothing is not an option. i want to thank the leadership
of chairman nunes and ranking member schiff and their leadership and the entire committee for coming together on this bill. i ask members support it and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, is recognized. mr. nunes: thank you. at this time i yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, who is the chairman of the homeland security committee, who without his strong leadership and support we wouldn't be at this juncture today getting a bill passed today and tomorrow that will help flee become law and with that -- hopefully become law and with that i yield to the gentleman, mr. mccaul. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mccaul: i rise in support of h.r. 1560, the protecting cybernetworks act. i want to thank chairman nunes for his great leadership and collaboration with my committee and judiciary on this bill and also the ranking member adam
schiff. a good friend as well. for his great work and the direction that this bill has gone. i think it's gone in the right direction. also i know the former ranking member, dutch ruppersberger, was here. want to thank him for his leadership over the many years on this important issue of cybersecurity. this legislation comes at a critical time of rising cyberthreats and attacks on our digital networks. cyber breaches and attacks are effecting privacy, security and prosperity. individuals are having their most private information compromised. their networks are damaged and the government's sensitive information is being targeted. the country's critical infrastructure is being probed by foreign enemies. detecting and defending against these digital assaults requires timely and robust information
sharing between the public and private secondors. this exchange of data is crucial to connecting the dots. identifying cyberattacks and -- protecting cybernetworks act will enable private companies to share cyberthreat information on a voluntary basis with the federal government. this bill provides simple liability protection for sharing cyberattack indicators through trusted civilian agency portals. again, i commend chairman nunes for his important work on this bill and thank him for his great partnership, working together to have these two complementary bills as tomorrow i'll bring to the floor a national security private advancement act of 2015 which further reinforces the role of the department of homeland security's national cybersecurity and communication
integration center as a hub for cyberthreat information sharing. chairman nunes and i worked in lockstep to remove obstacles preventing greater cyberthreat information sharing across the private and public sectors. and our staff -- and i commend the staff on both sides of the aisle -- have operated in tandem as we crafted these sign remember security bills. i'd also like to acknowledge chairman goodlatte for devising the house's standard liability exemption language for this week's cybersecurity bill. these bills represent a unified front in the house for strengthening cybersecurity while ensuring america's privacy, and i urge my colleagues to support this measure. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, is recognized. mr. schiff: madam chair, it
gives a great pleasure to yield three minutes to mr. himes, one of our subcommittee's ranking members, the gentleman from connecticut. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. himes: thank you. i thank my friend for yielding time. i'm thrilled to be standing here to urge support for the protecting cybernetworks act. i'd like to thank and congratulate chairman nunes ranking member schiff, the chairman of the subcommittee on which i serve as ranking member, mr. westmoreland, for coming together at a time when this congress is accused, often rightly so, being difunctional, to take a very substantial steps to secure the networks on which so much of our lives today depend. as ranking member of the cybersecurity subcommittee, my daily travels every single day expose me to people who say the single most important thing we as a congress could do today to advance the security of our networks to protect americans,
their financial records, their health records and of course even more ominously, to protect them against potential attack against our utilities and any sort of thing our antagonists around the world would seek to do to us the single most important thing to do is do what we're doing today is set up a rubric which the very good people can communicate threats to each other and communicate with the experiod of times within the united states government to work as a team -- expert within the united states government to work as a team to counter such steps. this rubric has been set up with ample attention and good attention to the legitimate privacy claims and the liberties we all take so seriously. the stakes are high. we saw what happened at sony. we saw what happened at anthem. we know of attacks that have been leveled internationally that destroyed computers. this is the reality that we live with and this is a very big step an information sharing protocol that will counter those who wish you ill.
i would note that privacy protections in this bill are considerably better, as the chairman and the ranking member have pointed out. than those that were in the bill of the last congress. the objections of those that were focused on privacy have been dealt with point by point, and while i won't say the bill is perfect this bill does what it needs to do to protect the privacy of the american people by obligating everyone to work hard, to scrub personally identifiable information from any code, any information that is exchanged. i've learned in my six years here we don't produce perfection, and it's my hope as this bill proceeds through the legislative path that we will work even harder to make sure we're very clear about definitions and in fact are protecting the privacy rights of americans as best as we can. but in the meantime we've taken a very big step forward in a bipartisan fashion in a way that will make america, its
people and its networks more secure. and for that i'm grateful to the leadership and urge support of the protecting cybernetworks act. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, is recognized. mr. nunes: at this time we're still awaiting speakers to come down, madam chair, so i'll continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, is recognized. mr. schiff: madam speaker i'm -- madam chairman, i yield three minutes to mr. swalwell, another of our ranking members on the intelligence committee and a colleague from california. mr. swalwell: thank you. i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for bringing forth this necessary legislation. as we speak right now americans are under attack, and these attacks are not coming in the form of anything that we have been used to before. people are not kicking down
front doors of homes and businesses. instead, they're attacking us through our networks. . our bank accounts, our cell phones are being hacked every day. cnn reported in 2014h half of the nation's adults were hacked. 70% -- 70 million target customers were hacked. 4.6 million snapchat user accounts were hacked. this is snapchat which is an account that allows data to come in and disappear. they were hacked. our privacy is under attack. the problem today, there is virtually zero relationship between private industry and government. private industry which has 85% of the networks and government
has 15% of the networks but has vast resources that could help protect individuals against attacks. our government has a duty, a responsibility to protect the american people. and that's what this bill seeks to do. it does it in a number of ways. first and foremost, this is a voluntary program that's being created. no business is required to turn over their breach or hack information to the government. instead there is a format, a procedure, that is now in place that will incentivize them to work with the government to identify in a way that strips out through a number of protections personal identifiable information. the first way it is stripped out when the business that has been hacked reports to a civilian agency, they must scrub the personal identifying information. that's not the only way that information is scrubbed. once the government agency receives this personal identifying information, again it can be forwarded to the
government, and again, must be scrubbed. two protections against personal identifying information being used. now, should any personal identifying information be passed and who along to the government. this bill provides a right of action, civil recourse for any individual who is wrong to sue the government. there is an sight committee, a report that must be presented to congress that would report on any privacy violations that occur. madam speaker the american people day after day are either learning that they have been hacked or someone they know has been hacked. and this will continue to have a devastating effect on our economy and as my colleague alluded, perhaps our public utilities if we do not act. i urge support and i thank the chairman and ranking member for the hard work they have done. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, continues to reserve.
mr. nunes: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, is recognized. mr. schiff: i yield three minutes to ms. sewell from alabama a great member of the intelligence committee. ms. sewell: thank you, madam chair, and i would like to thank the ranking member as well as our chair chairman nunes for your leadership on this matter. today i rise in support of h.r. 1560, protecting cybernetworks act, a bill i'm proud to be an original co-sponsor, a bill that was unanimously voted out of our intelligence committee. again, i want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership. it is an honor to serve on that committee where we try on a daily basis to be bipartisan in our efforts to protect the homeland and to secure our national security. this critical bill is both
bipartisan legislation, which encourages the private sector to share cyber delet information which will -- cyber threat information. we are hearing about another company being hit by attacks. this costs our economy billions of dollars and threatens our national security and jeopardizes every american personal, financial information. this bill takes a very important step towards addressing this emerging national security threat without compromising the privacy of american citizens. fostering an envirlte where companies can voluntarily share information with each other helps american businesses defend themselves against cyberattacks and helps them protect consumer information and privacy. additionally, two-way information sharing with the federal government helps improve the federal government's ability to protect all americans against
cyberdelets by disseminating information. i know is some continue to criticize this bill and all cyber bills as violating our privacy. i must assure you that this bill is a vast improvement over the sister bill that was entered and passed this house last term. this bill includes many more privacy protections that weren't in the original bill. the most important of which is the requirement for two scrubs of private information, one by the private sector before sharing that information, and one by the government before sharing it further. there is also now a civilian portal. no direct sharing with n.s.a. a very narrow set of government use provisions, and a clear and legislative prohibition against such surveillance. let me repeat, no provision of
this bill provides any surveillance authority. i'm encouraged by the strong showing of bipartisanship and as we work together to address the emerging threats to our national security, i urge my colleagues to join those of us who are members of the intelligence committee as well as this administration has said that it also encourages a vote in support of this bill. i urge my colleagues to support the efforts and vote yes on h.r. 1560. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, is recognized. mr. nunes: at this time i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. trott. mr. trott: i rise to speak about the need for a stronger cybersecurity efforts in our country. personal data flows through the
internet with great speed and data about people is gathered in an instant. the use of social media has opened up our lives and this is the same world where hackers steal millions of personal records from people in our distributes. most members of congress have been affected by hackers. internet criminals pose a dire threat to our government on the local state and federal level. the federal government has the resources but our local municipalities do not. five southeast michigan counties, living ton monroe oakland, washington, wayne in the state of michigan came together to build the cybersecurity assessment for everyone. it provides a strong point for governments to begin assessing their cybersecurity needs and taking steps to respond. the assessment is an excel
download. i commend these local michigan governments for committing the resources to develop such a tool and encourage my colleagues to work together to find the right solutions to fight cybercrime bypassing h.r. 1560. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california mr. schiff, is recognized. mr. schiff: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin, one of the congress' leading experts on cybermatters. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for two minutes. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding and madam chair, this has been a long time in coming. when i served on the intelligence committee in the past two congresses, i worked closely with chairman rogers and ranking member rureptcomberger and their legacy is evident in
this fine bill. i would like to commend chairman nunes for rising to the challenge as the new leaders of the house permanent select committee on intelligence and producing an even better product, particularly with regard to privacy protections. it also provides statutory authorization for the center the president has created to provide comprehensive assessments of cyberdelets. while the protections are narrow could be important to understand that information sharing is not a silver bullet. it will be important work to be done to improve our nation's cyberdefenses. passing an information-sharing bill will get us significantly closer to being much more secure in cyber space than where we are
right now. particularly when it comes to prot after studying issue for the better part of a decade, i can firmly say that the ill marks eight -- this bill marks a meaningful step forward. let me take the ranking member for continuing with this bipartisan support. i urge my colleagues to support the bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the house today approved a deal to allow companies to share information with the government on cyber security without potentially facing lawsuits. another cyber security bill in the house tomorrow will promote voluntary cheering about information among private companies. it requires that all personally identifiable information be removed from the material that is shared. tonight on c-span defense
secretary asked carter on sexual assault in the military. then a senate hearing on security with the northern border of canada. any senate finance committee works on legislation dealing with international trade. defense secretary ashton carter spoke to an audience of rotc students at georgetown university about sexual assaults in the military. he emphasized the role of military leaders in a defending sexual assault. following his remarks to date, secretary carter took questions on a wide range of military issues, including sequestration and increased focus on the asia-pacific region. this is 45 minutes.
host: ladies and gentlemen please welcome to the stage the professor of military science of rotc georgetown university. >> good morning ladies and gentlemen, students, faculty officer, noncommissioned officers, and cadets of the joint force, distinguished guests. welcome to the hilltop and ask for joining us on this great occasion. in his three decades of service to the nation, from academia to government service, secretary carter has been front and center as our military has tackled our most difficult challenges. from redefining america's engagement abroad in wake of the soviet union's collapse, to
tackling acquisition reform and modernization as the secretary defense for technology and logistics including spearheading a push for buying ambush protected vehicles. two adroitly spearheading the department in its more than 3 million men and women families, military and civilian personnel through sequestration and the department's chief operating officer. secretary carter has anticipated and let's change, seized upon opportunities, and never shied from a challenge. he has, as president obama noted in his nomination speech, a ruthless dedication to the safety and well-being of the men, women, and families of those who serve this nation. to discuss without the challenge of sexual assault in the ranks he is joining us this morning at georgetown. it is my distinct pleasure to o introduce secretary of defense ashton carter.
[applause] secretary carter: good morning everybody. thank you, colonel donahue, i appreciate the kind words. and i appreciate your leadership. it is a great crowd, big crowd for men of universities -- for many universities. we have cadets here, midshipmen hear from georgetown, university of maryland, howard university george mason, and george washington university, all here today. wonderful. it is a privilege to be with you.
the reason our military is the finest fighting force the world has ever known is its people. and taking care of our people, whether that is in afghanistan bases around the country or studying here in the nation's capital, taking care of them is my highest priority. i want to thank you, each and every one of you, you and your families, for your hard work and your service. do you know, there's a lot going on in the world? a lot of my plate as secretary of defense. we have challenges in afghanistan with isil, russian provocations cyber attacks. we are also working to reform thehow the pentagon spends money, recover from 14 years of
work and at the same time build the force of the future -- all about in front of us. it is serious business. and i know all of you and those american women all around the world who will hear this message and take it seriously. we can't let problems, including the scourge of sexual assault in the ranks, undermine that important work in our vital mission. instead, we have to confront them. ending sexual assault in the military won't be easy, but none of you signed up for easy. instead, you signed up for -- in doing so, you volunteered for early mornings, weekends on the field, and classwork on top of already demanding course loads. ending sexual assault in the military will require leaders leaders like you. you are part of rotc programs
with rich histories of leaderships. there was commissioned out of your programs have led troops into battle, become a flag officers, served as army chief of staff, and advised residents and secretaries of defense. -- presidents and secretaries of defense. you made clear you are a leader the moment you chose rotc. and you will be some of our brightest and best prepared junior officers when you are commission. -- when you are commissioned. because you are studying at a time in washington, when sexual assault has gotten much-deserved attention in military and government conversations, you will have the understanding and the urgency to be leaders on this issue as well as leaders in every other way for years to come. i am counting on you to become one of those leaders.
now even though sexual assault a disgrace in any form, and happens to often across the country -- too foten across the country of, it is a particular challenge and a particular disgrace to our institution, the military, for a few important reason. the first is that our military is waste on an ego's -- is based on an ethos of honor, and this is dishonorable. and second, we are based on trust. we have to have trust. you have to have trust in the soldier in the foxhole next to you, you have to trust in the sailor you are underway with, you have to trust the urban on your ring -- the airmen on your wing and you have to trust the man on your flank. these violations are not just violations of the law, they are violations of that trust, which
is essential to our mission. next, we of course have put people in situations that are unlike any other. you all serve in a rigid chain of command, and for good reasons. you will likely be separated from your families for extended periods of time, and you will probably at some point live and work in austere conditions. those types of environments are essential, but unfortunately they present opportunities for predators to put our people at risk and cover my our missions and our values. -- compromise our missions and values. we have a particular mission to combat sexual assault. and last, we need to recruit the force of the future.
sexual assault is an issue or many of our potential recruit. they care about it. i was at my old high school a few weeks ago in an auditorium like this, talking to students. one of the students asked me about this issue. she asked whether it was safe for her, she wanted to be in military, it was safe for her to do. i was sorry she had to ask that question. anyway, it is an issue. we can't let sexual assault make our volunteer force a less attractive path for the next generation of talented, dedicated individuals that we need. for all of these reasons and the threat sexual assault poses to the well-being of our men and women, the department of the fence has been working -- the department of defense has been working hard, inflicting over 100 congressionally mandated provisions and the secretary of
defense directives. we have made some progress. we have seen to have seen an increase -- a decrease in estimated assault and reported assaults. last year, we estimated that at least 18,900 service members 10,400 men and 8500 women experienced unwanted sexual contact. and twooo few of them, particularly men, reported these incidents of assaults. altogether, that is 18,900 too many. no man or woman who serves in the united states military should ever be sexually assaulted. one reason the military is among the most admired institutions in the united states is because of our code of honor and our code trust, and also because we are
known as a learning organization. we strive to understand and to correct our flaws. as we spend more time and resources to better understand sexual assault in the ranks, we have learned some lessons. here are a few of them. we have learned that prevention is the most important way to eradicate sexual assault. we have learned that prevention requires not just to stop assaults but also to stamp out permissive behaviors like tolerance or degrading like which, inappropriate behavior, and sexual harassment, that's too often contribute to and leads to sexual assault. -- tolerance of degrading language. even the perception of those reporting trying to prevent or responding to an assault may be retaliated against maybe retaliated against is a challenge for all of us. we have also learned that in
addition to all of our institutional efforts eliminating sexual assault requires individual action. we need leaders in the ranks with the courage to stand up to the behaviors that contribute to sexual assault. the courage to step up, step in, and stop assaults, and the courage to act when others try to retaliate against those reporting, responding to, or preventing an assault. one key to prevention is understanding that sexual assaults often occur in environments where crude or offensive behavior unwanted sexual tension coercion, and sexual harassment are tolerated ignored, or condoned. these behaviors detract from our mission. they put our people at risk. you have to be part of the solution. it won't always be easy, but to learn how, i encourage you to
look at our sexual assault prevention strategy we released lasty may. it provides ways for u.s. leaders to create inappropriate culture that standards of behavior and meet military core values. we have a serious work to do. and i need you to say "en ough." enough to dirty jokes, excessive drinking hazing, to sexual advances, and any suggestion that coercion is appropriate. i need you to intervene when you think an assault may occur. if for some reason you are concerned about taking action, i need you to get help from a friend, from law enforcement from a chaplain, or from a more senior officer. sadly, too, many of those assaulted the crime is made worse for how he or she is treated after the attack, after they have reported.
when victims are most vulnerable their leadership and their fellow shoulders sailors -- soldiers, sailors airmen, and marines need to stay in with them, not turn away. we need them to have people they can count on. it may not be easy, but i need you to be one of them. in person, and also online. i know young people live their lives online in many ways. you snapchat, tweak your every move, you share the day's news on facebook. you instagram pictures of events like the military ball you had this weekend. that is why i need you to be leaders, not just on the line of duty but online also. i trust most of you would intervene if you saw someone being bullied around campus, but too many people let that stuff slide online. we know that. sometimes offline too. we can't allow all of those who
do the right thing, either in reporting an assault or standing up to stop one, to be belittled on facebook, ignored at chapel hall, passed over promotion time, or mock any officer's club. that is counter to the egos you signed up for. 00-- the ethos you signed up for. the nation is looking to the defense department to lead boldly on sexual assault because they admire our institution and its values, and its culture. every one of us has to know to do our part. stopping sexual assault will be a focus of my time as secretary of defense. but as leaders of the future force, i ask that you too make eradicating these crimes one of your personal missions. to foster a culture of prevention response, and accountability dignity
respect, and integrity. communicate clearly about what is right and what is wrong in everything that you do, not just by your words, but also by your actions. aim to make a difference in your units, draft divorce, and around the country. -- through your force, and around the country. none of this is easy, but you will not be alone. you made great friends at rotc and around the school. each of you will be a leader in supporting despite, as will others. and i want you to know that i am standing with you and expecting that of you. courage is infectious. i have been impressed by the courage of those who have stepped forward with their stories of assault and the courage of those who stepped in to protect their fellow servicemembers. there examples - t- their examples give us the courage to do our part. because you do, your courage will in turn inspire others.
thank you and now let me take some questions. >> hi, good morning. minusy name is tom, i'm a sophomore here studying economics. it is a honor and privilege to have you here. my question is on a strategic level. how can we get more committed to our own defense, given the low defense budget, debt crisis, and in light of thew ar war in ukraine? secretary carter: very good question. first, the honor is mine to be with you. european defense spending, how can we get europeans to do more? they are not doing enough. they are spending a smaller share of their gdp than they
have in the past than we do now and many, like russia are spending. it is too low. if europe wants to be a force in the world, it needs to be more than a moral and political and economic force, which europe is, because it shares many of our values. it demonstrates them around the world, but it has to have the military power that goes with that as well. it needs to be a capable ally of ours. we see that slipping. it has got to turn around. they do have the money to do it. i realize that they are still suffering from the economic crisis to a greater extent and recovering a lot less than we have in the u.s., but they have the money to do this. i think when the cold war ended a lot of your figured that its security problems had ended. now they are beginning to wake up. the charlie abdo incident was a wake-up call. -- charlie hebdo incident.
russia and ukraine was a wake-up call. you see what is happening in africa with refugees coming to southern europe. that has nato concerned. you have turkey, a nato ally right there on the front lines syria and iraq in the fight against isis. it is not like they don't have plenty to do. it is not like we have to do everything ourselves. but it is a very good question and something that i press on them any president presses on them to do, and my predecessors did all the time. they have made some pledges to turn things around, get up to 2% of gdp each at the last wales summit. they have to carry through on. -- on that. >> i am from the george washington university. i was wondering what skills you think are important for officers commissioning now compared to 10 years ago. secretary carter: that is a good question, i will try to give you a good answer.
i think one way to approach that compared to earlier periods in my own career, is that you will quickly find, as i have found that the people you are leading or a generation younger than you. you have to really stretch to understand what is going on, how their lives are like. things move so fast that every generation gets different really fast. i can give you an answer from my point of view and see if any of this is useful to you. as i look out although you i know that you have grown up in an environment drastically different from mine in so many ways. i have to kind of find the common points with you, which are american values, military ethos, commitment to service you find all of that in every generation.
but you have to see where people's heads are, where they spend their time, how you can reach them, what kinds of issues really matter to them. i talked about us being a learning institution. leadership is a learning thing. you are constantly learning. you are going to meet people who aren't like you, who did not grow up like you, from a completely different background from you, but they are americans too, they are american servicemembers and you have to understand them. it is a real stretch. i can tell you when you are my age, that it is an even bigger stretch. with you in the course of your career you will eventually get yourhere too. you will find that it gets tough. you have to commit yourself to learning about them so that you can leave them properly. -- lead them properly. >> good morning sir. i am from the we state university. -- we state university -- bowie
state university. i heard you talking about challenges to the department of defense in africa, the middle east, and a broad. i am concerned how we are supposed to maintain our fighting strength and continue to train effectively with the economic issues such as sequestration facing us. secretary carter: really good question. it is a big challenge to us. let me explain why sequestration is so bad. sequestration is a sudden and arbitrary cut to the defense budget that we can't predict. this comes up year-by-year. as a manager, if you have to suddenly cut your budget, where do you get the money from? you grab the money mostly from readiness because that is where you can get your hands on money quickly. ucr readiness go down because training levels are down. -- you see readiness.
you begin to curb the rate in which you bite weapon systems -- buy weapon systems, raising the price, extending the time of contracts. in short doing all sorts of stupid things. of course, we wouldn't like reducing our budget even if we had extra time, if we had a stability and predictability, we could do it in an intelligent way. i believe that the suddenness and level of sequester, we still have the greatest fighting force the world has ever known, and will for a long time. we need to spend an amount of money that is adequate for the nation's defense and our missions around the world. this idea that you can skip, when the world is as mulch was as it is, -- as mulch with as it
is -- tumultuous as it is, is false. i am careful to say in my remarks, that at the same time we have to show that this is the taxpayer's dollar and that we spend it carefully. and we always don't, sometimes we make mistakes. i tried to say, here is the deal. you give us the defense budget, homeland security budget law enforcement budget -- it takes a lot to make a country secure these days. give us that money, and we will do a better job at spending it. i am committed to that of the reform side of things as i am to fighting sequestration. i take opportunity to condemn. it is no way to run the greatest country in the world. >> thank you sir. secretary carter: thank you. >> good morning, georgetown university. you believe in january of 2016 comes around, all positions in the military will be opened
women, 40 think some will remain closed? secretary carter: good question. i think most will, maybe all well. i don't know. -- maybe all will. the reason is that the services working through the practicality of some of the most difficult mos's from the point of reconciling traditional gender roles with combat effectiveness unit cohesion, and those kinds of things, those of the kinds of things people are grappling with. they are doing it in good faith. i'm certainly grappling with them with an intention to do the maximum practical. i think for way too long we have had, we have underestimated how well we can do. i talked about as being a learning organization -- we can learn this too. i am pretty optimistic. >> good morning, mr. secretary.
i look at it from american university. our armies current diplomacy in eastern asia, europe, iraq and afghanistan are focused on training in billing military capacity of our allies. sir, how can we as future lieutenants ensure the success of these missions as opposed to traditional missions of engaging and destroying the enemy? secretary carter: is a great question. -- it is a great question and it's sort of the secret sauce of the american military. it's not only prevails when it has to engage intself, but we are the best trainers and mentors of others. we have gotten good at it through sad experience. iraq afghanistan. it is important because we can't do everything. we can't keep the lid on everywhere. we can't combat extremism terrorism, whatever, everywhere
around the world. we need people to do their part. an earlier question was raised about the european for example. when it comes to other countries, we need them to keep the lid on, keep order, keep decency in their own countries. we can't be everywhere. it has got to be part of our defense and military strategy to help others help themselves. we can't do everything ourselves. i am proud of how good we are. i am proud of also how rewarding people find it. i have been in pretty obscure places all of the years i have been doing this. you see an american unit in the middle of nowhere training people, and it is really inspiring. they love it, by the way. they can point to a unit that they trained, and say, that wouldn't exist if it weren't for me. it is rewarding and it is a
force multiplier for our forces. >> thank you mr. secretary. secretary carter: thank you. >> good morning, i'm cadet austin from american university. in the same vein, the apartment of the fence is leading on the issue of sexual assault but also climate change, noting it as a threat to our national security. with your background, do you think the military is properly preparing itself and the nation for this threat? secretary carter: it is a good question. we are trying to. i can speak for us, i can't speak for the nation as a whole though their efforts there as well. why is a challenge for us? it is a challenge for us because it changes the topography of the world. literally, islands wiped out people's livelihood threatened,
which leads to the possibility of violence. disturbance in the arctic, a very significant issue. whole new shipping lanes will be opened up. hold no strategic vistas. -- whole new strategic vistas. we have a whole new ocean to guarantee that in. all of these things put pressure on human beings around the world. that pressure could lead to violence. we need to anticipate that to do our part to make the world safer and ourselves secure. it is a big deal. we are trying to stay ahead of it. thank you. >> good morning, mr. secretary. i'm a master student here at georgetown. i want to speak about positions for women affect sexual assault
in the military. are there challenges or opportunities for us to work together? secretary carter: a very insightful question. i think it cuts both ways. obviously as we get the women into more unaccustomed positions, may be dangerous-based related positions, decisions where there are fewer in the relation to the number of men. it opens up opportunities for predators. they do not have an ordinary life. on one hand, it could lead in that direction. on the other hand, i think it signifies to everyone getting used to working men and women together to defend the country. i cannot help but believe for many people, they will learn
better how to conduct themselves , interact across gender lines and so forth. that will contribute to prevention. eventually you medication. obviously we want to head in this direction. in addition, we get the benefit of more talented people eligible to serve in certain military roles. people are the key. it is not the airplanes and the tanks and technology. it is the people that make us the best. >> good morning. my question relates to your essay published last year in foreign affairs did you set the pentagon typically had issues reacting to press on the ground. what with the department of defense plan to do for emerging
threats right now? especially in the wake of recent budget issues. secretary carter: great question. what i was pointing to as a challenge for us in wartime -- as your president challenges in peace time or when you are trying to deter a war prepare for a work -- what the article was saying was that we had more difficulties than probably any of you would think responding to the ever-changing needs of the war in iraq and afghanistan. we were running into problems we had never run into before, like ieds. i was extremely frustrated at our institutions in ability to rapidly it happened adjust. to rapidly adapt and adjust.
what is that? before, you would have time. that would be ok. we need things in 15 weeks. the system couldn't move that fast. it was very frustrating to me and my boss at the time, bob gates. in washington, people, even in the pentagon, get involved in washington. the get involved in budgets and squabbles and testifying on the hill and what is in the newspaper. i found every once in a while you needed to shake someone. these guys are over here risking their lives for us. they get up in the morning and make their job number one. of course. that is why i love this institution.
you had to remind more people -- remind people more times than you think you would. let me take examples of china or russia or iran. no one wants to have a conflict with any of those, but we have to be ready. they are constantly changing just like the taliban ended. there modernizing. upgrading. changing their tools. techniques. technology moves fast now. in order for us to have a deterrent the kids up with the pace of potential conflicts, we need to be agile on a day-to-day base. we cannot let them go back to the war model. that was ok when it was slow. that will not work today. we have to be agile.
we're still fighting that fight. >> good morning, mr. secretary. and from the george washington university. my question is what does the administration and vision for the u.s. army in asia? what are your concerns for the long-term viability between the crisis in the italy's and ukraine -- in the middle east and ukraine? secretary carter: good question that looks at the pivot or rebalance in the asia-pacific. half of humanity and half of the economic activity in the world upon which we depend is in the asia-pacific region. much of our future lies there. it security and our role in it,
essential to the american future. you have to keep that in mind. even though what is on tv every night -- there has been a lot of balance. when you are doing strategy, you had remember what the fundamentals are. this is an important part of the world. the rebalance was a word used to signify our awareness that has a wars in iraq and afghanistan wound down. even as a fight against my soul begins and there's continued turmoil there, we have to pay attention. the west about the army. a good question. it is all water, right?
it is all water and air. what is an army going to do out there? their armory -- there army found plenty to do. it is dominated by their armies. history at work. one of the early questions was asking about partnership and building partner capacity working with other militaries. if we want these countries to be our friend and to be strong and stable and stand up with us against threats, we need to work with them. the army has fantastic relationships. they're working out there. one last note -- you have got to remember that the asia-pacific has no nato. there is no structure there for security. in nato, the wounds of world war ii were healed over decades.
they're all working together. there is a structure there for reconciliation to be made after world war ii. you still see them. there's still a lot of residual hostility. why has the peace and kept in asia-pacific for decades and decades? us. the secret has been the civil role of american military power. rebalancing seems to keep that this thing going. >> thank you, mr. secretary. secretary carter: thank you. >> a lot of the soviets for foreign affairs and the crisis sees -- crises have been in the middle east.
what about south america? there's a lot of turmoil down there. what is our interaction with him? secretary carter: very good question. the question is a reminder. you cannot take your eye off anyone. all the world is connected. we have a global response of a lady -- responsibility. the instability fueled by narcotics trade is essentially important dynamic there it leads to terrorism. the founding of revolutionary groups to illegal migrants in the u.s. and so forth. it would be unfortunate if we found the kind of thing that you
see every day in the middle east that close to our own borders. what we are doing there is working with the militaries in that region to try to build their capacity, make sure that a behave with the same skill, it also the same values that we do, which are necessary to keep short-term order by force. you have to have some goodness behind it. we try to instill that. it has worked incredibly well. columbia is a mess. it wouldn't it that way without the partnership of us and the colombian forces. there are success stories. you cannot take your eye off any part of the world is my job. >> this will be last question.
secretary carter: ok. >> good morning, mr. secretary. the sexual assault reported cases, a jury, judge, and you-- i wondered what you thought of the efforts to make the case is outside of the military? secretary carter: good question. it has been a point of study and debate and contention. many give you the -- it goes on. we give you the two sides of the coin here. on one side of the coin is the one you say namely that if there is a commander who isn't doing what i asked you to do today then since it is a chain of command, because militant
organization depends on the chain of command, we have a problem. we are talking that in two different ways. one, there are fewer commanders who do not know what their doing what their duties are aware of what their duties should be. the second is to give an alternative to the victims and their helpers. that is what some of our counselors and special victim councils are about, to give another chain of avenue for reporting and punishment and above all, care for the. -- care for the victim.
the other side of the argument is the chain of command is essential to our egos -- ethos. if you do not hold people responsible for everything about their command, including sexual assault prevention, that is not what we want from commanders. we want commanders who have all of those responsibilities together. we consider it not only an important part of military efficiency, but in important part of instilling the culture of proper demand. we are trying to do that. at the same time, we're trying to provide alternative avenues. that is the path we're trying to do to balance. it is still debated. there are differences there in our military community and in washington about the approach to it. the essence of it is to have it both ways. the virtues of the chain of command in a command culture without the abuses of that apple
in the chain. ok. listen, thank you all for being a part of our wonderful institution and for being the leaders that you will be. i hope you took on board this topic. important to be on top of and reflect in your own conduct and in your command conduct. we had great expectations of you. you are what makes us great. i'm confident that you will make us proud in the future. thanks very much. [applause]
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> it has been over five months since loretta lynch was nominated. watch coverage from the senate ginny at nine 30 p.m. -- 9:30 a.m. eastern time on c-span 2. >> the new york times reporter judith miller wrote several stores and the lead up to the invasion of iraq and what of mass distraction. in an effort to reveal her source -- use found a contempt and imprisoned in jail. on "q&a" he talks of her time in jail and her new book "the story: a reporter's journey." >> i was in jail because i read used to reveal the identity of a source who might that do not want his identity revealed.
protecting sources is the life's blood of independent journalism. i felt that unless the people that i spoke to who have access to classified information -- unless they could trust me to protect them, my sources would dry up. i would be writing with the government wanted you to write. i felt it was a question of physical. i didn't have much choice. >> on c-span's "q&a." >> a senate hearing examine security issues at the u.s. border with canada. topics including human trafficking and illegal immigration. u.s. border patrol chief was among the witnesses. this hearing of the senate homeland security committee is 2.5 hours.
>> good morning. this hearing will come to order. the staff informing b could get underway. i would like to put -- as i was talking to the witnesses, this is our fifth in a series of four hearings. we're trying to lay out the reality. it is not a pleasant reality. it is an enormously difficult problem. in terms of the legal immigration and drug trafficking -- illegal immigration drug trafficking, the biggest problem
is the southern border. i completely agree coming from a manufacturing background, we need to analyze the root cause of the problem. we had a good meeting with general kelly ahead of southern command yesterday. discussing the problems in central america and problems with the border security and drug trafficking. looking for that root cause, we were discussing it is really america's demand for drugs. how that command has greeted these drug cartels. it is harmful to society's in central america. we bear some responsibility for that. these are not going to be easy problems to solve. we have to make incremental improvements. i come from a manufacturing background. nothing is perfect. you have to improve. a purpose of this hearing and every hearing is to get people watching and admitting we have
problems by laying out that reality properly. our ranking members are joining us here. i would like to turn it over for comments. >> thank you for pulling together this hearing. the senator from new jersey has been strong. thank you. over the past couple of months, we have spent a fair amount of time on this committee. we are on trying to understand the security challenges he faced along our southern border. border with canada is even larger because it a unique opportunity and risks. our shared border is the largest in the world. it spans some 4000 miles.
it is huge. it is an economic powerhouse for both of our countries. some 300,000 people and $1.5 billion in trade across the u.s.-canada border everyday, every day. we pay attention to facing potential border threats. i had the pleasure of visiting michigan. a memorable visit. memorable. we sat in the parking lot and listened to the open running game. the tigers beat of the twins. great day. criminal activity and potential exportation by terrorists -- since i'm 11, we have increased border staffing.
-- since 9/11, we have increased border staffing. that is compared to 340 in 2001. a sevenfold increase. officers at the northern ports of entry. an increase of about a third over the last 10 years. is there more we can do to better secure the borders? sure there is. having said that, we need a better understanding of the risks. we need to do this. technology such as aerial surveillance and underground sensors, cameras on mobile towers, it can increase our ability to detect threats along the border.
strong information sharing networks could help make the best use of limited staffing and resources. fortunately, the best multiplier we could wish for -- agents are working closer together in a number of areas to enhance our shared community and shared asperity. we look -- shared prosperity. we look forward to how this relationship is working he on the border framework and other areas of progress are still needed. increasing security or expediting trade or both that we could replicate and use on our southern border. finally, hope that our focus on border security become part of a larger conversation and fixing that immigration system and reform. we look forward to your testimony. thank you for your service. >> thank you.
this committee is well populated -- we have got peters from michigan. i'm from wisconsin. another from montana and another from north dakota. this is a relevant hearing. you are welcome as well. it is all part of the same problem. glad to see you. i do want to welcome the witnesses. thank you for your thoughtful testimony. it is a tradition at this committee to swear in witnesses. raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you are giving will be the truth the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> i do. >> by the way, we do have vote starting at 10:45. keep your opening statements to
the six minute timeframe. we have that a good attendance here by our committee. our first witness is michael j. fisher. use the border patrol in 1987 and has served in numerous positions since then -- he has served in the border patrol since 1987 and has served in numerous positions since then. mr. fisher. chief fisher: thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member carper, and members of the committee. it is a privilege to appear to discuss our strategy to secure the northern border between the ports of entry. our porch along the -- our approach along the border and the overarching strategic themes of collaboration and integration and innovation. collaboration at all levels including information sharing and ordination among law
enforcement is critical for the shared security of the border. advanced information and intelligence is and will be the key to minimizing risk along the orders. operation integration center located at the international base in michigan is an information project to enhance the situation while awareness -- situational awareness, including u.s. coast guard, immigration and customs enforcement state and local law enforcement, as well as the mountain police and border services agency. a consolidates a wide range of infocom including radar in camera feeds tracking, databases not previously available remote sensor inputs, remote video surveillance, and mobile surveillance feeds and video from various ports of entry. additional information need such
as local traffic cameras will be added in the future. and terms of innovation, or efforts to improve technologies that could overcome the northern border terrain and environmental challenges, the department of homeland security is collaborating with canada along with us in a sensor sharing pilot to demonstrate the capability and utility of a common surveillance picture using a combination of u.s. and canadian sensor information. our situational awareness at the board is enhanced by technological capabilities including camera systems remote surveillance systems. there is one fixed wing and rotary aircraft equipped with sensors stationed along the northern order, including two unmanned systems. operate out of air force base in north dakota.
border security -- in addition, we're spanning the coherent change technology along the northern border this year. as this committee is aware, this is the same methodology that allows us to cover approximately 900 miles along the southwest border without having to deploy technology or order patrol agents. finally, integration efforts continue as well. each month cvp produces a briefing that provides a cross component multi agency intelligence report friday fighting monetary fashion monitory -- monitoring threats along the border. the state of the northern border has provided a broader avenue for information sharing and greater intelligence into right to act a video within the next this -- into activity within the nexus.
integrated border enforcement teams are comprised of u.s. and canadian law enforcement personnel and -- personnel. they operate as intelligence driven information teams designed to increase information and intelligence sharing capabilities among the appropriate u.s. and canadian authorities by incorporating mobile response capabilities in the air, land, and marine environments. participating law enforcement agencies with a full -- force multiplier that helps with efforts. german johnson, ranking member carper -- chairman johnson ranking member carper, i look forward to your questions. senator johnson: john wagner -- that was also your witness statement here to let me introduce you as well. you have been assigned to the
headquarters since 1999. mr. wagner began his career in 1991 when he joined the customs nervous as an inspector there. he has worked at the new york and new jersey for. i appreciate you joining us. i look forward to your answers and questions here at our next speaker is james spero. a special agent for the awful low, new york area. he serves as the ice division. acts as assistant special agent and charged in the field office. am i pronouncing that right, mr. spero? mr. spero: yes, senator. distinguished members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss isis efforts to improve security along the northern border.